■;mmm 




Class. 
Book 







\%<*Zs 



k 



*</ 



COMPLETE SYSTEM 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



OB, 



A CONCISE, COMPREHENSIVE, AND SYSTEMATIC VIEW 



EVIDENCES, DOCTRINES, MORALS, AND INSTITUTIONS 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 



By SAMUEL WAKEFIELD, D.D. 



"Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. 




Neto gork: 
PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PORTER, 




10 MULBERRY-STREET. 



1862. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1862, by 
CARLTON & PORTER, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern 
District of New York. 



Z Z, & J 



V^> VN N 'v 5**^ . 



e 



PE E FACE 



In presenting this volume of Christian Theology to the public, it 
may be necessary that the author should make some prefatory 
remarks, both in regard to the history of its origin, and to the dis- 
tinctive character of the work itself. 

There is perhaps no system of divinity extant which possesses 
more real merit than "Watson's Theological Institutes." As a 
body of purely evangelical theology, both theoretic and practical, 
it is nowhere surpassed ; and in regard to its polemic character, for 
the clearness of its statements, the candor with which conflicting 
sentiments are considered, the fairness of its arguments, and the 
force of its logical conclusions, it has no equal. Its worth has been 
acknowledged by divines of various denominations both in Europe 
and America ; and wherever it is known it cannot fail to reflect 
credit upon its able author, and to be regarded as the workings of 
a master-mind. 

But notwithstanding its numerous excellencies, and its perfect 
adaptation to the mature theologian, it is not well suited to the 
wants of those who are merely commencing their theological course. 
The very style in which the work is written is quite too labored 
for that of a text-book on any subject. Many of its sentences are 
so long and complicated, that in order to gather their meaning the 
most rigid attention is required. This not only diminishes the 
pleasure of study, but prevents, in a great measure, that deep 
and lasting impression on the memory which the subject would 
otherwise produce. A considerable portion of the work consists in 
quotations from various authors. By this means the uniformity of 
its style is frequently interrupted ; and as many of these quotations 
are from books of comparatively ancient date, the style is occasion- 
ally somewhat antiquated. Moreover, as the opinions of different 
authors are frequently brought to bear upon the same point of doc- 
trine, there is often an uncalled for and wearisome repetition of the 



4 PREFACE. 

same ideas ; and sometimes the introduction of matter which has 
no direct connection with the subject under discussion. 

For many years the author entertained the opinion, that by a 
judicious abridgment of the "Institutes" these defects might be 
remedied ; and that by this means a concise and simple theological 
text-book might be furnished, which would possess all the intrinsic 
value of the original, and at the same time conduct students to 
their desired acquisition by a shorter and easier path. Finding, 
however, after waiting long, and conversing with many upon the 
subject, that no one was willing to undertake the task, he finally 
commenced it himself; and, as his time and ability would allow, 
prosecuted it to its conclusion. 

But at this point a new question arose. It is known by all that 
there are many topics of vast importance to the students of theol- 
ogy which are not at all discussed in the " Institutes." It became 
evident, therefore, that a mere abridgment of Watson, however well 
executed, would not fully meet the present wants of the Church. 
It was this fact, together with corresponding suggestions from an 
official source, which led to the preparation of the following work 
in its present form. 

And now, in regard to the character of the work itself, it is only 
necessary to say that it has for its basis an abridgment of " Wat- 
son's Theological Institutes," which the author has given in his 
own style ; that to this is added a considerable amount of original 
matter, for the purpose of completing the system ; that the whole 
is presented in a new and strictly systematic form ; and that it 
assumes to a very great extent, as every candid reader will allow, 
the character of originality. 

As to the design of the author, it was to furnish a clear and 
comprehensive outline of scriptural theology, which, though espe- 
cially intended for the benefit of those who are preparing for the 
Christian ministry, should at the same time be adapted to the 
wants of all classes of readers, from the aged theologian to the 
Sabbath-school scholar. How far he has succeeded in the accom- 
plishment of his purpose others must judge. He knows that his 
work is imperfect, and will need the indulgence of a generous pub- 
lic. But he has done what he could ; and now his earnest prayer 
is, that God may accept the humble offering, and render it subserv- 
ient to the enlargement and edification of his Church : " To whom 
be glory for ever and ever. Amen !" 



CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION. 

PART I. 

PAGE 

Of Theology in General 9 

§ 1. The Nature of Theology 9 

§ 2. The Objects of Theology 12 

§ 3. Divisions of Theology J 13 

PART II. 

Of the Sources of Theology 18 

§ 1. Of Reason, as a Source of Theology 18 

§ 2. Of Revelation, as a Source of Theology 22 



BOOK I. 

EVIDENCES OP A DIVINE REVELATION ^ 39 

CHAPTER I. 

Evidences Necessary to Authenticate a Divine Revelation 40 

§ 1. External Evidence 40 

§ 2. Internal Evidence , 48 

§ 3. Collateral Evidence 50 

CHAPTER II. 
Genuineness of the Holy Scriptures 51 

CHAPTER III. 
The Integrity of the Sacred Scriptures 58 

CHAPTER IV. 
Authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures 64 

CHAPTER V. 
Divine Authority of the Sacred Scriptures : Inspiration 71 

CHAPTER VI. 
Divine Authority of the Sacred Scrdptures : Proof from Miracles 83 

CHAPTER VII. 
Divine Authority of the Sacred Scriptures: Proof from Prophecy 90 

CHAPTER VIII. 
DrviNE Authority of the Sacred Scriptures : Internal Evidence 98 



t> CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER IX. 

PAGE 

Divine Authority op the Sacred Scriptures: Collateral Evidence 109 

CHAPTER X. 

Divine Authority op the Sacred Scriptures : Miscellaneous Objections answered. 114 

BOOK II. 

DOCTRINES RESPECTING GOD 124 

CHAPTER I. 

The Existence of God 124 

CHAPTER n. 

The Attributes op God 139 

§ 1. Unity of God ." 140 

§ 2. Spirituality of God 142 

§ 3. Eternity of God 145 

§ 4. Omnipotence of God 146 

§ 5. Omnipresence of God 149 

§ 6. Omniscience of God 151 

§ 7. Immutability of God '. 156 

§ 8. Wisdom of God : 159 

§ 9. Truth of God 162 

§ 10. Justice of God 165 

§ 11. Holiness of God 161 

§ 12. Goodness of God 170 

CHAPTER III. 

The Trinity in Unity 178 

§ 1. The Importance of the Doctrine 180 

§ 2. Scripture Proofs of the Doctrine 182 

CHAPTER IV. 

Divinity of Christ , 181 

§ 1. The Pre-existence of Christ 187 

§ 2. Christ the Jehovah of the Old Testament 190 

§ 3. Divine Titles ascribed to Christ 195 

§ 4. Divine Attributes are ascribed to Christ 199 

§ 5. Divine Works are ascribed to Christ 201 

§ 6. Divine Worship paid to Christ 205 

CHAPTER V. 

The Sonship of Christ 210 

CHAPTER VI. 

The Person of Christ , : 221 

CHAPTER VII. 

Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost 227 

CHAPTER VIII. 

The Decrees of God 234 

CHAPTER IX. 

Of Creation 242 

§ 1. Of Creation in General 242 

§ 2. Of Creation in Particular 249 

CHAPTER X. 

Or Divine Providence * . 261 



CONTENTS. 



BOOK III 

PAGE 

DOCTRINES RESPECTING MAN 275 

CHAPTER I. 
Man's Primitive State 275 

CHAPTER LT. 
The Pall of Man 281 

CHAPTER III. 

The Effects of the Fall 290 

§ 1. The Nature of that Death which was made the Penalty of Sin 291 

§ 2. The Legal Relation which Adam sustained to his Posterity 292 

§ 3. The Moral Condition in which Men are actually Born into the "World 296 

CHAPTER IV. 
Man's Moral Agency 308 

CHAPTER V. 
Man's Moral Agency : Objections 322 

BOOK IV. 

THE REMEDIAL DISPENSATION.... 336 

CHAPTER I. 
Principles of God's Moral Government 337 

CHAPTER II. 
The Atonement : Primitive Sacrifices -. 343 

CHAPTER III. 
The Atonement : Sacrifices of the Law 349 

CHAPTER IT. 
The Atonement : Death of Christ Propitiatory 356 

CHAPTER V. 
Extent of the Atonement 371 

CHAPTER VI. 
Extent of the Atonement 377 

CHAPTER TIL 
Predestination 387 

§ 1. The Doctrine of Election 389 

§ 2. The Doctrine of Reprobation 399 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Justification 403 

§ 1. The Nature of Justification 406 

§ 2. How Justification may be obtained 409 

§ 3. Objections answered 420 

CHAPTER IX. 
Regeneration ." 424 

CHAPTER X. 
Adoption 433 

CHAPTER XL 
Entire Sanctification 446 

CHAPTER XII. 
The Possibility of Total Apostasy 455 



8 CONTENTS. 



BOOK V. 

PAGE 

MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY 461 

CHAPTER L 
The Moral Law 461 

CHAPTER n. 
Repentance ' 471 

CHAPTER IH. 
Faith 479 

CHAPTER IV. 
Love to God 486 

CHAPTER Y. 
The Duty of Prayer 492 

CHAPTER VI. 
Observance op the Sabbath 501 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Love op our Neighbor 515 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Duties which we owe to our Neighbor 527 

BOOK VI. 

THE INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY : 538 

CHAPTER I. 
The Christian Church 538 

CHAPTER II. 
The Sacraments 552 

CHAPTER III. 

Baptism 557 

§ 1. The Nature of Baptism 557 

§ 2. The Subjects of Baptism 561 

§ 3. The Mode of Baptism 573 

CHAPTER IV. 
The Lord's Supper 590 

BOOK YIL 

THE FUTURE STATE 597 

CHAPTER I. 
The Immortality op the Soul 597 

CHAPTER II. 
The Resurrection of the Body 611 

CHAPTER III. 
The General Judgment 621 

CHAPTER IV. 
The Eternal Blessedness op the Saints 630 

CHAPTER V. 
The Endless Punishment op the Wicked 637 

Index of Texts more or less illustrated 651 

Index of Subjects 654 



INTRODUCTION 



Befoee we enter upon the discussion of the various topics which more 
strictly belong to the Christian system, we will offer a few introductory 
remarks in regard to theology in general, and the sources from which 
it is derived. 

PART I. 

OF THEOLOGY IN GENERAL. 

In our remarks upon theology in general, we will notice its Nature? 
its Objects, and its Divisions. 

§ 1. The Nature of Theology. 

The term theology is derived from 0e6c, (theos,) God, and Aoyoc, 
(logos,) a discourse ; and literally signifies a discourse concerning God. 

The ancient Greeks used the term according to its most literal signi- 
fication, and hence, those who wrote the history of the gods, their 
works and exploits, were called -deoXoyot, or theologians. Pherecydes, 
of Scyros, was the first who was so denominated, and his work was 
entitled tieoXoyia, or Theology. Homer and Hesiod were theologians 
in this sense of the word. 

In the writings of the Fathers the term is sometimes employed in a 
restricted sense to denote some particular doctrine concerning God, 
Accordingly, they speak of the theology of the sacred Trinity, and of 
the theology of the Son of God ; that is, the doctrine of the Trinity,, 
and of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. 

But in the twelfth century Peter Abelard employed the term to de- 
note particularly learned or scientific instruction in religion ; and this 
use of the word was preserved by most of the succeeding theologians. 
In the seventeenth century, however, many of the Protestant divines 
gave the name of theology to any knowledge respecting God and divine 
things, thus using the word in its etymological sense. 



10 INTRODUCTION. [Part I, § 1. 

Theology, in its modern acceptation, is that science which treats of 
the existence, the character, and the attributes of God; his laws and 
government; the doctrines which we are to believe, the moral change 
which we must experience, and the duties which we are required to 
perform. In this sense theology and divinity are synonymous, both 
embracing the whole system of revealed religion, and both signifying 
learned or scientific instruction respecting God. Hence, a theologian, 
or divine, is one who is able thoroughly to explain, prove, and defend 
the doctrines of religion, and to teach them to others. 

When we say that theology embraces the whole system of revealed 
religion, we do not intend to convey the idea that theology and religion 
are terms of precisely the same import ; for though they should not be 
employed in opposition to each other, as some modern writers have 
done, yet they differ materially in regard to their signification. Re- 
ligion, understood subjectively and in its most comprehensive sense, in- 
cludes, 1. A knowledge of God in regard to his nature, his attributes, 
his relations to men, and his will respecting them; and, 2. Affections 
and conduct corresponding with this knowledge. The former, which 
may be denominated the theory of religion, is addressed to the human 
understanding ; while the latter, which is the practical part, belongs to 
the will and affections. 

These two essential parts of religion are always united in the teach- 
ings of Christ and his apostles. " If ye know these things, happy are 
ye if ye do them." John xiii, 17. "Be ye doers of the word, and not 
hearers only, deceiving your own selves." James i, 22. Religion, in 
this sense of the term, comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines, 
and also practical piety. 

Thus far we have considered religion subjectively, or in its relation to 
those who possess it ; but it may also be taken objectively to designate 
the whole sum of doctrines respecting God and his will. In this sense 
religion is nearly equivalent to theology, but with this difference, that 
the latter is commonly restricted to the knowledge of the true God, 
while the former is applied to any system of doctrines respecting either 
the true God, or false gods and their worship. We therefore speak 
of the religion of the Romans, of the Turks, of the Hindoos, or of the 
Indians, as well as of the Christian religion. We speak of false re- 
ligions, as well as of that which is true; and also of embracing, profess- 
ing, changing, or renouncing religion, using the term in the same 
sense. 

It follows, therefore, that religion, as distinguished from theology, 
consists in practical piety, or the performance of all known duties to 
God and our fellow-men, in obedience to the divine law; and that the- 
ology, as distinguished from religion, is a systematic arrangement of 
doctrines respecting God, his will, and his worship. 

As theology consists in a systematic arrangement of the general 



Part I, § 1.] NATURE OF THEOLOGY. 11 

principles and leading doctrines of revealed religion, it is therefore 
called a science; and it is donbtless as worthy of that distinction as 
any other department of human knowledge. Indeed, it may be prop- 
erly called the science of sciences, because it comprehends in its wide 
range every other science. It leads us back to the beginning of the 
world and the origin of man ; and it directs our attention to the arts, 
manners, customs, religion, and history of ancient nations. It calls into 
its service language, astronomy, geography, and poetry; it explores 
the fields of natural, intellectual, and moral philosophy ; it leads us to 
investigate the wonderful construction of our own bodies in the science 
of anatomy and of physiology ; and, in a word, it takes in the entire 
circle of human knowledge, whether it be addressed to the memory, 
the understanding, or the imagination. 

Many of the topics embraced in theology are abstruse, and nearly all 
of them have been perplexed by controversies which commenced as 
soon as our religion was promulgated, and have been continued from 
age to age with all the arguments that ingenuity and learning could 
supply. 

The private Christian, ignorant of the subtle disputes which have 
arisen concerning almost every article of faith, humbly takes up the 
Bible as the word of God, and by a short and easy process acquires 
that measure of religious knowledge which makes him wise unto sal- 
vation. But the minister of religion proceeds more slowly, encounters 
obstacles at every step, and is often compelled to assume the character 
of a polemic. He must therefore study theology as a science, that he 
may be able not only to instruct the simple and illiterate, but also to 
contend with the wise and learned, whether as infidels they oppose 
revelation in general, or as heretics they impugn any of its doctrines. 

From what has been said of theology in general, we must perceive 
the transcendent dignity and excellence of this science, and conse- 
quently the importance of theological study. Whether we turn our 
attention to the doctrines which theology embraces, or to the moral 
influence which it is intended to exert upon mankind, we can hardly 
fail to see that it claims the preference to every other study. To know 
God as far as he has revealed himself to us is the noblest aim of our 
understanding ; to love him, the purest and holiest exercise of our 
affections ; and to obey his commandments, the most rational, honora- 
ble, and delightful employment to which our time and talents can be 
devoted. 

A man may be comparatively ignorant of human science and of the 
liberal arts, and yet by the sanctifying light of pure religion he may 
find his way to life eternal ; but he who lives without a knowledge of 
God, though his mind may be stored with every other kind of knowl- 
edge, is living like a fool, and shall die without hope. 



12 INTRODUCTION. [Part I, § 2. 

§ 2. The Objects of Theology. 

There are three different objects that men may propose to themselves 
in the study of theology. They may pursue it, first, merely as a branch 
of liberal education, in order to gratify a laudable curiosity ; or, 
secondly, to qualify themselves for the practical duties of the Christian 
life ; or, thirdly, to fit themselves for the office of the Christian minis- 
try. The first of these objects requires much more than the second ; 
but more is necessary for the accomplishment of the third than for 
both the others. 

So far as it relates to the first of these objects, it may be remarked 
that theological science, even apart from its utility, is both ornamental 
and entertaining ; and no good reason can be assigned why theology 
should not be studied like any other science, purely for its own sake 
as a branch of liberal education. With regard to the second object, 
a qualification for the practical duties of the Christian life, every Gospel 
minister is thus far a professor of theology, and every attentive hearer 
of the Gospel is thus far a theological student. But it is chiefly for 
the accomplishment of the third and most comprehensive object — a qual- 
ification for the sacred office of the Christian ministry — that men pursue 
a regular course of theological training. 

The least of what is required in the Christian pastor is that he be 
qualified to discharge the various duties of the Christian life, for in this 
respect he ought to be an example to his flock. Farther, he should 
labor to acquire a knowledge of whatever is necessary for the edifica- 
tion, the comfort, and the protection from all spiritual danger, of the 
people that may be committed to his care, or whatever may be of use 
in defending the cause of God. Again, whatever may enable him to 
make a proper application of all his acquisitions in knowledge, so as to 
turn them to the best account for the benefit of his people, is no less 
requisite. 

To little purpose will it be for the minister to possess even the best 
materials, if he has not acquired the necessary skill to use them to ad- 
vantage. The former we may call the theory of the profession ; the 
latter the practice. The first without the second, however considerable, 
may be compared to wealth without economy. It will not be near so 
beneficial to the owner, and to those who depend upon him for support, 
as a more scanty portion would be where economy is understood and 
practiced. Nor will the second do entirely without the first, for the 
best economy can be of no real value where there is no subject on 
which to exercise it. 

It follows therefore, that in the proper qualifications of a Christian 
minister there are two leading departments: the first regards the 
science of theology alone ; the second, the application of that science 
to the purposes of the Christian pastor. 



Part I, § 3.] DIVISIONS OF THEOLOGY. 13 



§ 3. Divisions of Theology. 

Theology is divided, according to the sources from which it is 
derived, into Natural and Revealed; and it may be arranged under 
three general epithets, depending upon the distinctive manner in which 
it is treated, as Didactic, Polemic, and Practical. 

1. Natural Theology is that knowledge of God and of divine 
things which is supposed to be derived from the light of nature, or 
from the exercise of reason and the suggestions of conscience. It is 
taught by the advocates of Natural Theology, that man, by a contem- 
plation of the objects around him in the natural world, will be led to 
infer the existence of a Great First Cause, by whom these objects were 
created; and to ascribe to this Invisible Being certain attributes and per- 
fections, the signatures of which are seen upon the works of his hands. 

From this great first principle of natural religion other doctrines are 
deduced, such as that God governs the world; that man, in order to 
possess the favor of God, must practice piety, justice, and benevolence ; 
that the human soul is immortal; and that there is a future state of 
retribution, in which the righteous shall be rewarded and the wicked 
punished. These are generally supposed to be the fundamental articles 
of Natural Theology; and much reason and eloquence have been 
employed in illustrating them, and in demonstrating their truth, in 
opposition to the objections of atheists. 

By some theologians the division of Theology into Natural and 
Revealed is entirely rejected. They maintain that we owe all our 
knowledge of God, originally, to Divine Revelation; and that there- 
fore, as to its origin, it cannot be natural. But though we allow that 
God revealed himself to men even in the earliest ages of the world, 
and that much of that revelation has been transmitted, from age to 
age, until the present time, yet this division is not to be rejected. The 
light of nature may not be the primary source of religious knowledge ; 
but it is obviously an important means by which this knowledge is 
confirmed, enlarged, and perpetuated. Men are left to examine, in the 
diligent use of their natural powers, the grounds of revealed truth, to 
deduce from it its proper consequences, and to build higher upon this 
solid foundation. They thus obtain additional knowledge by the study 
and contemplation of nature; and why may not this religious knowl- 
edge, thus obtained, be called Natural Theology f 

2. Revealed Theology is that system of divine truth which is con- 
tained in the Holy Scriptures. It is called Revealed, or supernatural, 
because it is derived exclusively from the word of God, and not from 
the deductions of human reason. It includes all the articles of natural 
religion; but it comprehends many other important doctrines, which 
never could have been known, had not God revealed them to the 



14 INTRODUCTION. [Part I, § 3. 

world. What, for instance, could the light of nature teach with 
regard to the existence and character of angels, the origin of moral 
evil, and the redemption of man by Jesus Christ? 

3. Didactic Theology consists in a plain exposition of the several 
doctrines of religion, and the adduction of the proofs by which 
they are sustained. The theologian who pursues his subject didactic- 
ally, must proceed in the same manner as a teacher of any other 
science. It is his business to give a clear statement of the constituent 
doctrines of theology, and the conclusions which may be legitimately 
drawn from them, together with the train of reasoning upon which 
these conclusions are founded. He should not only state, explain, and 
prove the several doctrines of religion, but exhibit them also in their 
proper order and connection. Didactic Theology should therefore be 
systematic. Such a methodically arranged form of the great truths of 
religion will enable the student to contemplate them in their natural 
connection, and to perceive both the mutual dependence of the parts, 
and the symmetry of the whole. 

It is granted that the doctrines of religion, as taught in the Bible, 
are not arranged in this systematic form, but are disclosed gradually, 
as providence required, and as Divine Wisdom directed. This circum- 
stance, however, forms no objection either to the perfection of the 
Sacred Scriptures, or to a systematic arrangement of the doctrines 
which they contain. It forms no objection to the perfection of the 
Sacred Scriptures ; for if we consider attentively the economy of divine 
grace in relation to the restoration of man, we can hardly fail to see 
that, in order to the perfecting of the whole plan, it was necessary that 
the several parts should be revealed by successive degrees, as the 
scheme advanced toward its completion. If therefore God has 
revealed, with sufficient clearness, the doctrines to be believed and the 
duties to be practiced, we have no reason to complain, nor should we 
dare to prescribe rules to Infinite Wisdom. 

On the other hand, it is no ojection to a systematic arrangement oi 
the doctrines of theology, that they are not thus digested in the Bible. 
God has given us a revelation of his will, that it may be employed for 
our spiritual instruction, our moral improvement, and our eternal salva- 
tion; he has given us a capacity to make a proper use of this revela- 
tion; he requires us to employ this capacity so as to turn the spiritual 
benefits which he has so graciously bestowed upon us to the best 
account; and we are therefore at liberty, nay, it becomes our duty, in 
the proper exercise of our reason, to arrange the doctrines of revealed 
religion into that form which will best assist us in obtaining the 
benevolent end that God had in view in revealing: his will to man. 

But while we admit that the doctrines of the Bible are not arranged 
in a systematic or scientific form, we are not to suppose, on the other 
hand, that revealed religion is destitute of all order; or that the Bible 



Part I, § 3.] DIVISIONS OF THEOLOGY. 15 

is an assemblage of writings which have no relation to one another but 
that of juxtaposition or collocation in the same volume. There is cer- 
tainly an approach to system in some parts of the Bible, particularly 
in the writings of St. Paul. It is a consecutive revelation of the coun- 
sels of God toward man; and there is order here, as well as in all his 
other works, though it may require patient investigation to discover it 
to its full extent. We should therefore study the Scriptures, not to 
load the memory with a multitude of unconnected ideas, but that we 
may be able to bring together and systematize the saving truths which 
they reveal, and thus "understand what the will of the Lord is." 

No intelligent man can be a careful and constant reader of the Bible 
without forming in his own mind a system of doctrines. And he will 
observe, moreover, that in proportion as this system advances toward 
completeness, its parts will reflect increasing light upon one another. 
Are we then to believe that the utility of such a system is either de- 
stroyed or diminished by its being communicated to others ? Surely not. 

Arrangement in any science is a great help both to the judgment and 
the memory; and the more simple and natural the arrangement is, the 
greater is the assistance which it affords. Theology, like any other 
science, may be digested according to different methods, each of which 
may have advantages peculiar to itself; but that arrangement is best, 
upon the whole, in which the order of nature is most strictly followed, 
and in which nothing is previously taught that presupposes a knowl- 
edge of what is afterward to be explained. 

4. Polemic Theology consists in a vindication of the doctrines, pre- 
cepts, and institutions of religion, against the opinions and attacks of 
errorists. The term polemic is derived from the Greek nokefuicog, 
(polemikos,) and signifies warlike. A polemic divine is therefore a 
warrior, in opposing error and defending truth. 

It is acknowledged that this epithet sounds rather harshly when applied 
to a minister of the Gospel, who ought to be emphatically a messenger 
of peace; and it may be partly on this account that Polemic Theology 
has been often held in disrepute. It is loudly demanded by many that 
the voice of controversy be no more heard in the Church of God — that 
Christians bury all their religious disputes and differences of opinion in 
perpetual oblivion, and that they dwell together in brotherly union. 
This demand is no doubt often made in sincerity ; but it always exhibits a 
great want of discernment. It proceeds upon the supposition that peace 
is of more value than truth, and that solid and lasting peace may exist 
without having truth for its foundation, neither of which can be admitted. 

We believe, however, that this demand for peace is sometimes 
intended to conceal a sinister design under the plausible appearance of 
great liberality — a design to prevent one party from defending its doc- 
trines, that another may propagate its opinions without opposition. 
Such cries for peace are like the conduct of Joab, when he took Amasa 



16 INTRODUCTION. [Part I, § 3. 

by the beard, saying, "Art thou in health, my brother?" and smote him 
in the fifth rib. 2 Sam. xx, 9. 

There is nothing more evident than that when truth is assailed it 
ought to be defended. Thus we see that many of our Lord's discourses 
were intended to correct prevailing errors. St. Paul declares of him- 
self, that he was "set for the defense of the Gospel;" and Jude exhorted 
those to whom he wrote to "contend for the faith which was once 
delivered to the saints." As it would therefore be base pusillanimity 
to yield, without a struggle, to the enemies of truth, so it would be dis- 
graceful, as well as criminal, in the professed guardians of truth, not to 
be qualified to sustain the dignity of their office, and to uphold the 
sacred interests of Christianity. They should be "able, by sound doc- 
trine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." Titus i. 9. 

It is not necessary for the theologian to acquire a knowledge of all 
the controversies that have ever arisen in the Christian Church. Such 
a task would be both tedious and unprofitable. But it is a matter of 
the utmost consequence that he be able to maintain the claims of 
revealed religion against the attacks of infidels, and to defend its funda- 
mental doctrines against all errorists. He should therefore gain a 
particular acquaintance with the theological disputes and questions of 
the age and country in which he lives, and with the distinguishing- 
tenets of the different sects with which he is surrounded. 

5. Practical Theology is that which states and explains our moral 
and religious duties. In the two preceding departments of theological 
science the doctrines of religion are illustrated and defended. These 
doctrines are the foundation of Practical Theology, and supply the only 
motives that can lead us to the proper performance of the duties which 
God requires. In Didactic and Polemic Theology, therefore, the way 
is prepared for this; for Practical Theology is only the improvement 
which should be made of the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. 

No truth is more clearly sustained by the word of God than that the 
doctrines of Theology should be turned to a practical purpose. Christ 
declares: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter 
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father 
which is in heaven." Matt, vii, 21. With this agree the teachings of 
the inspired apostles. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation 
hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and 
worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this 
present world." Titus ii, 11, 12. "And hereby we know that we know 
him if we keep his commandments." 1 John ii, 3. 

The practical intention of Theology appears, moreover, from the 
nature of revealed religion. If we take a view of the several parts of 
Christian doctrine, it will appear that they have a direct reference to 
piety and practice ; and that if this point were given up, religion would 
be of no utility, and the whole subject might at once and forever be 



Part I, § 3.] DIVISIONS OF THEOLOGY. 17 

dismissed. But the several articles of Theology are such as tend to 
produce practical piety. This is particularly true in regard to what it 
teaches concerning God, his Attributes and his Works; as likewise con- 
cerninsr the Person and Offices of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

The precepts of religion are given for practice, and would not be pre- 
cepts if they were given only in order that they might be known, but 
not obeyed. The promises of Scripture always presuppose pious obedi- 
ence, as they are made to those only who are truly pious; and they 
would cease to be promises if there were no established connection 
between obedience and reward. 

It. may be observed also that the threatenings of God would have no 
force, if the necessity of obedience' were excluded. It becomes the 
duty, therefore, of every minister of the Gospel to represent religion as 
a practical system, to show the tendency of its doctrines to promote 
holiness of heart and life, and to explain as far as possible the nature of 
that "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord." 

Theology is not a subject which belongs exclusively to the curious to 
investigate, and in which speculative men may spend their leisure hours; 
it is one which claims universal attention. Its instructions are addressed to 
all classes of men ; to the learned and the illiterate ; to the free and the 
bond; to them who abound in wealth, and to the children of poverty 
and want ; to the retired student, and to the man of business engaged 
in the stirring scenes of life. To all it speaks with equal authority, 
and it should be equally interesting to all, as pointing out the only way 
that leads to life eternal. 

But while this subject claims a share of every man's attention, be- 
cause it has a direct bearing upon every man's welfare, there is an ad- 
ditional reason why those who have devoted themselves to the Chris- 
tian ministry should make it the subject of their most careful and 
thorough investigation. Theology is their profession, as really as 
medicine is the profession of the physician, or law that of the barrister. 
In this profession they should labor to excel; not, indeed, from the 
same motives that actuate men of other professions — a desire of fame, 
and the prospect of worldly emolument ; but with a view to the faith- 
ful and honorable discharge of the sacred duties of their holy calling. 

The nature and responsibilities of this sacred office are concisely and 
forcibly presented, in the charge which God gave to the prophet 
Ezekiel. " So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the 
house of Israel ; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and 
warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, 
thou shalt surely die ; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from 
his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I 
require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his- 
way to turn from it, if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his 
iniquity ; but thou hast delivered thy soul." Ezekiel xxxiii, 7-9. 

2 



18 INTRODUCTION. [Part II, § 1. 



PART II. 

OF THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. 

"We now proceed to inquire into the sources from which theological 
knowledge is derived. These are Reason and Divine Revelation. 

§ 1 . Of Reason, as a /Source of Theology. 

By Reason we understand, in general, that faculty of the mind by 
which we distinguish truth from falsehood, and good from evil ; or by 
which we are enabled to deduce inferences from facts and propositions. 
But when Reason is spoken of as a source of Theology, it means the 
rational and moral faculties of man, exercised, without any supernatural 
assistance, in the investigation of religion. 

There are two aspects in which human reason may be regarded ; and 
what is true of it in one, may not be true of it in the other. First, it 
may be taken for that high intellectual ability with which man was 
originally endowed, and which was as sufficient to direct him in all the 
various concerns of life, as instinct is to direct the lower animals. We 
do not say that even then Reason was man's only guide. The sacred 
history clearly shows that he lived in familiar intercourse with his 
Maker, and was favored with occasional communications of the Divine 
will. 

But, secondly, Reason may signify the rational and moral powers of 
man in his fallen, sinful, and enfeebled state. It is to Reason, in this 
sense alone, that our inquiries are now to be directed ; and we will try 
to ascertain, as nearly as we can, its true relation to the acquisition of 
theological or religious knowledge. Let us notice the extent of its dis- 
coveries, its real use, and its limitation. 

1. The Extent of its discoveries as a Source of Theology. 

Whether man, by the mere light of nature, can attain all the religious 
knowledge which is necessary to conduct him to virtue and happiness, 
is the great question of controversy between infidels and Christians. 
Of this question the advocates of natural religion take the affirmative, 
and contend that their theory is supported by what we know of the 
Divine Perfections. They assert that it would be inconsistent with the 
justice and the goodness of God to suppose that he would hold men 
responsible for their moral and religious conduct, if they had not in 
themselves sufficient means to acquire a knowledge of the Divine will ; 



Part II, §1.] SOURCES OF THEOLOGY: REASOST. 19 

that for this very purpose he endowed men with Reason, which must 
therefore be perfectly sufficient to direct them in every part of their 
duty ; and that the notion of any supplementary means is a reflection 
upon the wisdom of God, as if he had not originally adapted man to 
his situation, and was therefore compelled to devise a new expedient 
for correcting the error. 

Without examining these assertions one by one, and showing, as 
might easily be done, that they are mere gratuitous assumptions, it may 
be enough to observe, that there is not a single fact in the history of 
mankind by which they can be confirmed. They are fictions of the 
imagination, and not sober relations of things as they really exist. They 
are deductions from false premises, and not conclusions drawn from 
observation and experience. 

It is not our business to inquire what should be, according to our 
own ideas of justice and fitness, but what actually is; not what Reason 
was designed to accomplish, but what it has actually accomplished. It 
is preposterous to give an arbitrary definition of Reason, and then to 
conclude that it is capable of exerting all the power which has thus 
been ascribed to it. It would be more consonant to sound philosophy 
to judge of the power of Reason by its effects. In a word, we must 
not waste our time and impose upon ourselves by endeavoring to show 
beforehand what Reason can do ; we ought to proceed according to a 
different and a safer plan, and inquire what it has actually done. 

Viewing the subject in this light, we are forced to the conclusion 
that it is, to say the least, extremely doubtful whether the doctrines 
embraced in what is called Natural Religion are within the reach of 
unassisted Reason as original discoveries .* That these doctrines, 
when clearly proposed to the mind, are approved by Reason, no one 
will deny. But whether men, by mere rational investigation, could 
arrive at the conclusion that there is a God, the Creator and Governor 
of the universe, and if they could, whether they would connect with 
this primary tenet the other articles of the system, are questions yet to 
be determined. Nor would it be any more an impeachment of the 
Attributes of God to affirm the incompetency of Reason in matters of 
religion, than it is to say that an eye which in consequence of disease 
does not see at all, or sees very imperfectly, is unfit for the purpose 
which it was originally intended to serve. 

We admit that what is popularly called the light of nature may be 
so understood as to justify the opinion that it is sufficient, independent of 
a direct revelation, to lead men to a knowledge of God and of divine 

* The phrase Natural Religion is often used equivocally. Some understand by it 
every thing m Religion, by whatever means it may be discovered, which has a "real 
rounaation m the nature and relations of things, and wbich unprejudiced Reason will ap- 
prove Others confine it to that system of Religion which they suppose to be discover- 
awe by men, m the sole exercise of their natural faculties, without higher assistance. 



20 INTRODUCTION. [Part II, § 1. 

things. But in this view of the light of nature three things are to 
be taken into the account. First, mankind generally possess, to a 
greater or less extent, a traditional knowledge of the existence, the 
attributes, and the will of God. Secondly, there is, to the eye of Rea- 
son, an adaptation in surrounding nature to confirm and illustrate 
these traditional discoveries, and to lead men of reflection to a knowl- 
edge of its Author. " The heavens declare the glory of God ; and the 
firmament showeth his handy work." Psalm xix, 1. "For the invisi- 
ble things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being 
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and 
Godhead ; so that they are without excuse." Romans i, 20. Thirdly, 
man possesses an additional source of the knowledge of God in himself, 
in his own conscience; which distinctly acquaints him with a Supreme 
and Invisible Judge of his thoughts and actions. Thus St. Paul repre- 
sents the Gentiles, who were without the written law, as having "the 
law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and 
their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." 
Romans ii, 15. 

The light of nature, therefore, as thus understood, includes a degree 
of supernatural instruction traditionally preserved ; the deductions of 
right Reason from creation and providence, and the dictates of our moral 
nature. It is only in this connection that Reason is sufficient to conduct 
men to a knowledge of God ; but even then it leaves them in perplex- 
ing doubts in regard to many very important points. It cannot, there- 
fore, afford them all the assistance which they need for their religious 
instruction and moral improvement. But if Reason, even when thus 
assisted, is insufficient to discover many religious truths of the highest 
interest to man, unassisted Reason, as a source of theological knowledge, 
must be wholly inadequate. 

We are not to conclude, however, from what has been said respect- 
ing the insufficiency of Reason, that it is to be entirely discarded from 
religion. It has important offices to perform in regard \o this subject 
as well as to every other. If we were not rational creatures we would 
be as incapable of religion as the beasts that perish ; and if we did not 
employ our Reason in the study of religion it would be addressed to us 
in vain. But as God has endowed us with rational powers, he requires 
us to exert them in search of truth ; and they are never so worthily 
employed as in endeavoring to acquire just notions of his character, 
our relations to him, the duties which he has enjoined upon us, and the 
hopes which he has authorized us to entertain. Let us then consider, 

2. The Use of Reason, as art Instrument of Religious Knowledge. 

The Use of Reason in matters of religion is to investigate the evidences 
on which its claims to truthfulness are founded, and fairly and impar- 
tially to interpret its teachings. It belongs to Reason, then, 

(] .) To judge of the evidences of religion. While reason is thus em- 



Part II, § l.] sources of theology: reason. 21 

ployed it not only collects proofs from observation and experience, in 
favor of the doctrines of natural theology, but it examines the grounds 
upon which any new doctrine claims to be a revelation from God. As 
various systems of religion claim this high origin, it is necessary that 
their pretensions should be carefully and critically investigated, and to 
do this is the legitimate work of human reason. There are two ways 
in which this investigation may be conducted. "We may compare the 
system which demands our assent with our previous conceptions of the 
Divine character and will, in order to ascertain whether it harmonizes 
with them, because it is certain that sound Reason and a genuine Reve- 
lation cannot contradict each other. Or, we may consider certain cir- 
cumstances extrinsic to the system itself, by which its claims to a super- 
natural origin may be determined. 

The external circumstances to which we allude are such as these : 
The character of the publishers of the system, the nature of their tes- 
timony, and the works to which they appeal in attestation of their 
mission ; and of all these Reason is competent to judge. The doctrines 
of the system may be so far beyond the range of Reason that it shall be 
incapable, by an abstract contemplation of them, to determine whether 
they are true or false ; and yet the marks of truth which accompany the 
system may be so easy of apprehension as to carry conviction even to 
an ordinary understanding. For, though a man may be unable to 
comprehend a revealed truth, he may find no difficulty in estimating the 
force of the evidence by which its truth is established. We do not 
then retract what we have said respecting the insufficiency of Reason in 
matters of religion when we make it the judge of its evidences, for in 
this office it has nothing more difficult to perform than in the common 
affairs of life. But it is the office of Reason, 

(2.) To interpret a religious system, or to ascertain what its real doc- 
trines are. Here the same rules are to be applied as in the interpreta- 
tion of any other record. The terms employed are to be taken in their 
plain and commonly received sense ; figures of speech are to be inter- 
preted with a reference to the local peculiarities of the country in which 
the writers resided; idioms are to be understood according to the genius 
of the language that is used ; the key to allegorical or mystical dis- 
courses must be sought in the book itself, and not in our own fancies ; 
what is obscure must be interpreted by what is plain; and the 
scope and tenor of a discourse must be regarded, and no conclusion 
formed on passages detached from their context, unless they are com- 
plete" in sense, or evidently intended as axioms or apothegms. Notice 
is also to be taken of the time and place in which the record Avas 
written, the circumstances of the writer, and also of those to whom he 
wrote. 

Reason may be farther employed in the exhibition and statement of 
the doctrines of religion. If these are brought together in a discon- 



22 INTKODUCTIOtf. [Part II, § 1. 

nected manner, as they evidently are in the Bible, we may use our Rea- 
son in collecting, arranging, and uniting them into such a system as 
shall suit our own convenience or the advantage of others. We may 
also illustrate the truth, the excellence, and the fitness of the various 
parts of the system, by analogies drawn from things around us, by the 
observation of human nature, by historical facts, and in many other 
ways which call Reason into exercise. 

3. The limitation of Reason. This is found in the authority of God. 
Reason may canvass the evidence, and proceed to settle by the laws of 
criticism and common sense the genuine import of Revelation ; but here 
it should stop. The wisdom of God must not be tried by human rea- 
son. In the former case it acts as a servant, but in the latter it would 
assume the authority of a master. When, therefore, God has explicitly 
revealed any doctrine, that doctrine is to be humbly received, whatever 
degree of rational evidence may be afforded in its support ; and no tor- 
turing or perverting criticism can be innocently employed to bring a 
doctrine into accordance with our favorite views, any more than to make 
a precept bend to our vicious inclinations. 

§2.0/" Divine Revelation, as a Source of Theology. 

A Divine Revelation is "a discovery of some proposition to the 
mind which came not in by the usual exercise of its faculties, but 
by some miraculous divine interposition, either mediate or imme- 
diate."* 

In our remarks upon Divine Revelation as a source of theology, we 
will briefly point out its Possibility, its Necessity, and its Probable 
Character. 

I. A Revelation is possible. 

jNo one who believes that there is a God, and that he is a Being of 
infinite knowledge, wisdom, and power, can reasonably deny that he 
can, if he thinks fit, make a revelation of himself and of his will to men 
in an extraordinary way, different from the discoveries made by men 
themselves in the ordinary use of their rational faculties ; for if God is 
almighty his power must extend to whatever does not imply a contra- 
diction, which cannot be pretended in this case. 

We cannot distinctly explain the origin of our ideas, or the way in 
which they are excited or impressed upon the mind, but we know that 
this is done in various ways. And can it be supposed that the Author 
of our being has it not in his power to communicate ideas to our mind, 
in order to instruct us in those things which we are deeply concerned 
to know ? Our inability to explain the manner in which this is done 
is no just objection against it. This has been acknowledged by Lord 
Bolingbroke, a distinguished antagonist of Revelation. He observes, 

Definition 68. 



Part II, § 2.] SOURCES OF THEOLOGY : REVELATION. 23 

that " an extraordinary action of God upon the human mind, which the 
word inspiration is now used to denote, is not more inconceivable than 
the ordinary action of mind on body, or body on mind ;" and that " it 
is impertinent to deny the existence of any phenomenon, merely because 
we cannot account for it." 

As God can, if he sees fit, communicate his will to men in the way of 
extraordinary revelation, so he can do it in such a manner as to assure 
those to whom it is made that it is, indeed, a Divine Revelation. This 
is a natural consequence, for to suppose that God can communicate his 
will to men, and yet that he is not able to give them this assurance, is 
evidently absurd and contradictory. It is, in effect, to say, that he can 
reveal his will, but has no way of making men know that he does so, 
which is. most unreasonable. If men can communicate their thoughts 
by language, so that we may certainly know who it is that addresses 
us, it would be a strange thing to affirm that God has no way of 
causing his rational creatures to know when he reveals to them his 
will that it is He, and no other, who makes the revelation. To deny 
that a God of infinite perfection has such a power is a glaring contra- 
diction. 

II. A Revelation is necessary. 

This is a sentiment in which all will concur, except those who 
regard religious truth as a matter of absolute indifference, and those 
who believe that Reason is sufficient for all the discoveries which are 
necessary to guide men to virtue and happiness. Infidels profess to 
adopt the latter principle, but act according to the former ; for, in no 
part of their conduct is there any indication of reverence for religious 
truth, or of a sincere desire to discover it. They continually betray 
symptoms of levity and impiety, a contempt for seriousness, a disposi- 
tion to cavil, to raise objections, to perplex evidence, to involve every- 
thing in doubt, and to turn into ridicule the most solemn of all subjects. 

But whatever may be the thoughts of men devoted to pleasure, and 
living without God in the world, every one who feels that he is an ac- 
countable, being must desire to know by what means he may fulfill the 
design of his existence, and obtain the happiness of which he is capable. 
That a Revelation is necessary is evident, 

1. From the weakness and insufficiency of human JReason in the 
discovery of religious and moral truth. 

It is not from mere theory but from experiment, not from conjecture 
but from matters of fact, that we can ascertain what Reason can do 
in the discovery of religious truth. Let us, therefore, turn our attention 
to some of the doctrines of Natural Religion, which are supposed to be 
fairly within its province, that we may discover the results of its re- 
searches respecting them. We will notice, 

(1.) The existence of God. This is the fundamental principle of all 
true religion. That it is demonstrable by Reason, when once the idea is 



24 INTRODUCTION. [Part II, § 2. 

suggested to the mind, we readily allow, for it has been evinced by 
arguments so strong and conclusive that it is hard to conceive how any 
one can resist them and continue to be an Atheist. The metaphysician 
should be overpowered by the profound reasonings of Clarke ; and the 
man of plainer understanding by the more obvious arguments of Ray, 
Derham, and Paley. It should not be overlooked, however, that this 
triumphant demonstration of the Divine Existence is found only in the 
writings of Christians. For, though a similar train of argument was 
pursued by some of the heathen philosophers, as Cicero and Socrates, 
yet the illustration was not so ample as it is now made by the discover- 
ies of modern philosophy, nor was the conclusion to which it naturally 
led drawn with equal clearness and confidence. 

The cause of this difference is obvious. To the Gentile the existence 
of God was a question involved in doubt, an inference to be deduced 
from premises ; and though he could see clearly some steps in the pro- 
cess, he was not always able, with equal distinctness, to perceive the 
result. But when Christians attempt to discuss this subject they are 
fully convinced of the fact ; and we must perceive, upon the slightest 
reflection, that it is much more difficult to discover an unknown truth, 
by a slow process of induction, than to adduce proofs in support of 
what is already known. The former is like the voyage of Columbus, 
when he was in search of the new world. He did not know that 
there was such a country as America, and consequently he had noth- 
ing but probability to support him amid the difficulties and perils of 
the enterprise. But the latter is like a voyage to a well-known port, 
whither the skillful mariner can shape his course by his chart and his 
compass. 

That nature, in all her works, declares the existence of a God, is 
readily admitted; but the sages of antiquity either disregarded her 
voice, or failed to interpret her language. Hence, their notions respect- 
ing him are so exceedingly imperfect and erroneous, as to afford indu- 
bitable proof that the God of Natural Theology will never be any 
thing more than the dumb idol of philosophy, neglected by the philoso- 
pher himself, and unknown to the multitude; acknowledged in the 
closet, but forgotten in the world. * 

To heathen philosophers, the idea of the distinct subsistence or 
personality of the Deity was in a great measure unknown. They re- 
garded him, not so much an Intelligent Being, as an Animating Power 
diffused throughout the world. This notion was introduced into their 
speculative system, to account for the motion of passive matter, which 
they supposed to be coeval and co-existent with God himself. 

In practice they adopted the polytheism of their country, and paid 
religious honors to an endless train of gods that were acknowledged by 
the vulgar. There was not a nation upon the earth, except the Jews, 
in which the living and true God was adored. Every natural object 



Part II, § 2.] SOURCES OF THEOLOGY : REVELATION. 25 

was mistaken for him, every part of the universe was deified, and fancy 
exerted its creative power in superadding a multitude of imaginary 
beings as objects of worship. Even in Greece, that seat of refinement 
and philosophy, there were not less than thirty thousand gods. In 
modern India, where science has long been cultivated, the number is 
still greater, for her gods are estimated by millions. 

From these facts we have a right to conclude that the existence of 
One God, which is the first principle of what is called Natural Religion, 
is not discoverable by reason, or, at least, that reason cannot discover 
it with sufficient clearness to produce a permanent and practical con- 
viction of it on the mind. Philosophers sometimes spoke of the Deity 
as One, but there was no certainty or consistency in their opinions. 
Though the idea occurred to them, obscurity hung upon it, and to the 
wisest of them he remained " the unknown God." 

(2.) The creation of the icorld. We believe that all things were 
created by the almighty power of God ; and though the production of 
the universe out of nothing is an event of which we can form no con- 
ception, yet we consider the Cause as adequate, Omnipotence being 
able to do whatever does not imply a contradiction. But among those 
who had only the light of nature to guide them, very different senti- 
ments were entertained. Unassisted reason never arrived at the con- 
clusion that the universe had a beginning. Nor did it assent to this 
doctrine, even when it was suggested. Ex nihilo nihil fit — nothing is 
made out of nothing — was an undisputed maxim among all the sages of 
antiquity. In the details of their systems they differed, in many re- 
spects, from one another ; but they all concurred in rejecting, as absurd, 
the idea of a proper creation. 

Some believed that the universe was eternal, both in matter and 
form, that the heavens and the earth had always existed, and that the 
human race had no beginning, and would have no end. Others main- 
tained that the present order of things had a beginning, but they as- 
cribed it to accident, to a fortuitous concourse of atoms, which, dancing 
up and down in infinite space, united themselves at last in the present 
regular system of nature. 

Among those philosophers who acknowledged a Deity, some, instead 
of regarding him as the Creator of all things, confounded him with his 
works. They supposed him to be the soul of the universe, giving life 
and motion to its various parts, as the soul of man animates his body. 
Others, though they distinguished him from the universe, did not be- 
lieve that he created it, but held the opinion that he only reduced it to 
order from its previous chaotic state. But according to all of them 
matter was co-eternal with the Diety, and depended upon him only in 
this, that his power was exerted in moving and arranging it. Their 
notions, therefore, of the relation of the universe to God must have 
been very different from those which we entertain. We hold that he 



26 INTRODUCTION. [Part IE, § 2. 

created the earth on which we dwell, and the heavens which shed their 
influences upon us, and that "in him we live, and move, and have our 
being." 

(3.) Divine Providence. We could hardly expect those who were 
so much mistaken, or so imperfectly informed, with respect to the char- 
acter of God as Creator of the world, to entertain just ideas of his gov- 
ernment of it. 

It was natural for such philosophers as attributed the present system 
of the universe to accident, to deny a Providence altogether. Accord- 
ingly, the Epicureans represented the gods as indolently reposing in 
their own region of undisturbed felicity, and beholding with indiffer- 
ence the affairs of mortals. Aristotle taught that God "observes 
nothing, and cares for nothing beyond himself." The Stoics contended 
for a Providence, and occasionally said some fine things respecting it. 
" Of religion toward the gods," says Epictetus, " this is the principal 
thing : to form right conceptions of them as existing, and administering 
all things well and justly ; to obey them, and acquiesce in all things 
that happen, and to follow willingly as being under the conduct of the 
most excellent mind." 

But this elevated language loses much of its value when we remem- 
ber that the Stoics held the doctrine of fate, by which all things were 
controlled, and to which both gods and men were subject. According 
to them, therefore, the world was not, properly, governed by the gods, 
for they, as well as their nominal subjects, were bound by the eternal 
and inviolable chain of causes and effects. Plato, and the followers of 
Pythagoras, professed to believe that all things happened according to 
Divine Providence ; but this they overthrew by uniting God with for- 
tune. " God, fortune, and opportunity," says Plato, " govern all the 
affairs of men." 

In all the ancient heathen nations there were " gods many, and lords 
many." But wherever polytheism is admitted it is as destructive 
of the doctrine of Providence as fate, though by a different process. 
The fatalist supposes all things to be fixed and certain, and thus 
excludes the true idea of government; the polytheist gives up the 
government of the world to the will of contrary deities, and thus 
makes everything uncertain. If he gains the favor- of one deity, 
the wrath of another equally powerful, or even more so, may be pro- 
voked ; or the gods may quarrel among themselves. Such is the only 
Providence which can be discovered in the Iliad of Homer and the 
^Eneid of Virgil. 

We see, then, that though the idea of a Providence floated in the 
minds of heathen sages, they were not able to give it a distinct and 
consistent shape. All that reason could do was to point out the gen- 
eral truth. It failed to illustrate it, and to erect upon this foundation 
the superstructure of a rational piety. 



Part II, § 2.] SOURCES OF THEOLOGY ! REVELATION. 27 

(4.) The immortality of the soul, and a future state of retribution. 
Though in some form these doctrines were recognized in most pagan 
systems of religion, yet their evidence was either very defective, or they 
were mixed up with notions entirely subversive of that moral effect 
which they were originally intended to produce. 

The doctrine of judicial astrology,* which perhaps originated in 
Chaldea, but was extensively received by the Egyptians, the Greeks, 
and the Romans, is so nearly allied to fatalism as to subvert the idea 
of a probationary state here, and of a retribution hereafter. But the 
doctrine which has done more than any other to destroy the moral 
effect of a belief in man'© immortality is, that " God is the soul of the 
world," from which, all human spirits come, and to which they will all 
return ; some immediately at death, and others through a course of 
transmigration. The Scriptures teach that the human soul is from 
God by creation. The refinement of pagan philosophy is, that it is 
from him by a separation of essence, and that it still remains a separate 
portion of God, seeking its return to him. Revelation shows that at 
death the souls of the just return to God, not to lose their individuality, 
but to be united to him in holy and delightful communion. The philo- 
sophic perversion is, that the parts so separated from God, and for a 
time connected with matter, will be reunited to the great Source by 
refusion, as a drop of water to the ocean. 

"When, therefore, the ancients attributed a proper eternity to the hu- 
man soul, we must not suppose that they understood it to be eternal in 
its distinct and peculiar existence, but that it was discerpted from the 
substance of God in time, and would in time be rejoined to it again. 
They only differed about the time of this reunion or resolution, the 
greater number holding it to be at death ; but the Pythagoreans not till 
after many transmigrations. Those of the Platonic school went be- 
tween these two opinions, supposing that pure souls are joined to the 
Universal Spirit at death, while those which have contracted much 
defilement pass through a succession of bodies before they return to 
their parent substance. This theory is not only incompatible with the 
doctrine of future rewards and punishments, but it turns the immortal- 
ity of man, so far as his distinct consciousness and personality are con- 
cerned, into absolute annihilation. 

Another notion equally at war with the soul's immortality, and witli 
a state of future retribution, was that of a periodical destruction and 
renovation of all things. This sprung up in the Egyptian schools, and 
was thence transmitted into Greece and India, and throughout all Asia. 
This theory is, according to Diodorus Siculus, "that the universe under- 

* Judicial astrology is a science which is based upon the supposition that the heavenly 
bodies have a ruling influence over the physical and moral world, and which teaches 
men to judge of the influences of the stars, and to foretell future events by their situation 
and different aspects. 



28 INTRODUCTION. [Part II, § 2, 

goes a periodical conflagration, after which all things are to be restored 
to their primitive form, to pass again through a similar succession of 
changes." 

As the Stoics held that all inferior divinities, and all human souls, 
were portions separated from the soul of the world, and would return 
into the first celestial fire, so they supposed that at the same time the 
whole visible world would be consumed in one general conflagration. 
u Then," says Seneca, " after an interval the world will be entirely 
renewed, every animal will be reproduced, and a race of men, free from 
guilt, will repeople the earth. Degeneracy and corruption are, how- 
ever, to creep in again, and the same process is to go on forever." This 
is evidently a corruption of the primitive doctrine of the destruction of 
the world, and the consequent termination of man's probationary state, 
preparatory to the general judgment ; but it is one which effectually 
destroys the moral influence of that awful and most salutary revelation. 

The doctrine of Aristotle and the Peripatetics gives no countenance 
to the opinion of the soul's immortality, or even of its existence after 
death. Democritus and his followers taught that the soul is material 
and mortal ; Heraclitus, that when the soul is purified from soft vapors 
it returns into the soul of the universe, if not it perishes ; and Epicurus 
and his followers, that " when death is we are not" Pliny declares 
that " the soul and body have no more sense after death than before we 
were born ; and Seneca, a that the day which he fears as his last is the 
birthday of eternity." The poets, it is true, spoke of the joys of Elys- 
ium, and the tortures of Tartarus ; but' both philosophers and poets 
regarded them as vulgar fables, as Virgil clearly shows. Thus the 
light of nature was too feeble to dispel the darkness that rested on all 
beyond the grave. 

(5.) The systems of heathen morality. Here, it must be acknowl- 
edged, reason has had a degree of success. There are admirable treatises 
upon morality, which were composed by heathen philosophers, and which 
we may read both with pleasure and profit ; but he who expects to find in 
any of them a perfect system of morality will be greatly disappointed. 

It has indeed been affirmed by Lactantius that everything delivered 
in the Scriptures on the subject of morals is contained in the writings 
of one or another of the philosophers; but Lactantius, -though a fine 
reasoner and an elegant writer, is not entitled to much deference in 
matters of theology, of which he has shown himself to be an incompetent 
judge. What he has affirmed is not true, for in the moral systems of 
the philosophers some duties of great importance are omitted, and some 
things which they call virtues, when brought to the Christian standard, 
are found to be vices. 

Cicero declares that " virtue proposes glory as its end, and looks for 
no other reward ;" and Zeno, that " all crimes are equal, and that a 
person who has offended or injured us should never be forgiven." The 



Part II, § 2.] SOURCES OF THEOLOGY : REVELATION. 29 

Cynics held "that there was nothing shameful in committing acts of lewd- 
ness in public." Aristippus affirmed " that as pleasure was the summum 
bonum, a man might practice theft, sacrilege, or adultery, as he had oppor- 
tunity." With regard to veracity, the rule of Menander was that " a 
lie is better than a hurtful truth." Plato said, " He may lie, who knows 
how to do it in a Jit season y" and Maximus Tyrius, that " there is noth- 
ing decorous in truth, but when it is profitable." Humility, which is 
a Christian virtue of the first order, was despised by heathen philosophers 
as an indication of a mean and dastardly spirit ; and the direct tendency 
of their moral lessons was to inspire men with notions of personal dig- 
nity, a feeling of self-approbation, a consciousness of worth, which, of 
all tempers, is most offensive to God. 

We see, then, that the systems of heathen morality were exceedingly 
defective ; but, in addition to this, they were entirely destitute of any 
authority that could give them force. Their authors claimed no com- 
mission from God ; they performed no miracles for the confirmation of 
what they taught ; their doctrines were incapable of a mathematical 
demonstration, and consequently they could only be regarded as mere 
human opinions, which every one might receive or reject, as his judg- 
ment, his interest, or his passions might dictate. Such systems of 
morality had therefore no power over the conscience; and the motives 
to virtue which they contained were insufficient to counteract men's 
innate propensity to evil, or to overcome the strong temptations to 
which they were continually exposed. Hence, a general depravity of 
manners prevailed among the ancient Gentile nations, a depravity which 
was not confined to the lower and uneducated classes of society, but 
which extended to the higher and better informed, and even to the 
very men who professed to be teachers of wisdom. 

It would be a great mistake to suppose that the heathen philosophers 
spent their days in the study and practice of virtue. There is abundant 
proof that they were, in general, a class of unprincipled declaimers, 
whose infamous conduct daily contradicted their eloquent harangues. 
It was in view of this fact that Cicero inquired : " Who is there of all 
the philosophers whose mind, life, and manners were conformable to 
right reason ? Who ever made his philosophy the law and rule of his 
life, and not a mere show of his wit and parts ? Who observed his own 
instructions, and lived in obedience to his own precepts ?" 

This induction of facts must prove to every one that the principles of 
natural theology are beyond the reach of unassisted reason. It is there- 
fore in vain for any man to contend for its sufficiency till he can point 
out an instance in which it has discovered and established, by satisfac- 
tory arguments, the great truths of natural religion. 

But here we may observe, that little as reason has done in the dis- 
covery of religious truth, we have no evidence that it could have done 
even so much had it been left to work out its own discoveries alone. 



30 INTRODUCTION. [Part II, § 2. 

Indeed, its solitary strength has never been fairly tried, for man has 
never been entirely destitute of a Revelation. Though this was in a 
great measure lost among the nations of the world, yet some fragments 
of it remained, from which the philosophers of antiquity made up their 
various systems of religion. From this source they derived the idea of 
a God, and their notions of Providence, of morality, and of a future 
state. Thus tradition was supplementary to reason ; and though its 
light was faint, yet it led to the knowledge of some truths which the 
eye of reason, amid the surrounding darkness, could not have discovered. 

Another remark to which this investigation leads us is, that those 
who contend for the sufficiency of reason in matters of morals and relig- 
ion, owe all their best views to that fountain of inspiration from which 
they criminally turn away. How otherwise can it be accounted for, 
that the very principles which modern philosophers regard as demon- 
strable by unassisted reason were held doubtfully, or connected with 
some manifest absurdity, or utterly denied by the wisest moral teachers 
among the ancient Gentiles ? They had the same works of God, and 
the same course of Providence to direct them ; and to neither were they 
inattentive. They had intellectual endowments which have been 
admired in all subsequent ages ; and their reason was rendered acute 
and discriminative by the discipline of mathematical and dialectic science. 
They had everything which the moderns have, except the Bible ; and 
yet, on points which have been generally settled among modern philos- 
ophers as fundamental to natural religion, they.had no just views, and 
no settled conviction. 

The strongest advocates of natural religion must admit that of the 
ancient philosophers, some argued themselves into a belief of Atheism ; 
some, by ascribing all things to chance, and others to absolute fatality, 
subverted all true notions of religion. Some patronized particular vices, 
while others professed open immorality. Even the better sort of them, 
who reasoned most correctly concerning the Providence of God, the 
immortality of the soul, and a future state of retribution, discoursed on 
all these subjects with much uncertainty and doubtfulness. 

Were we even to allow that those just views of God and religion 
which sometimes appear in the writings of heathen philosophers are to 
be ascribed to the power of human reason, the argument for its sufficiency 
would not be greatly strengthened. It would only show that the reason 
which occasionally reached the truth had not power to hold it fast ; that 
the pinion which sometimes bore the mind into fields of light could not 
maintain it in its elevation. But facts will not allow us to admit that 
the truth which they occasionally advanced was the discovery of their 
own powers. They were evidently indebted to a traditional knowledge 
much earlier than their own day, and they obtained additional light 
from the descendants of Abraham, whose sacred books contain noble 
and just views of God, and a correct morality. 



Part II, § 2.] SOUECES of theology: revelation. 31 

We have now seen how defective Reason is in its application to natural 
theology ; but if we apply it to the peculiar doctrines of Revelation, we 
shall soon find that here it cannot make a single discovery. It is like 
the eye, which, though it perceives objects within a given limit, cannot 
discern, unless aided by art, those parts of creation which lie in the 
profound abyss of space. To Reason, the line which is drawn between 
natural and revealed theology is impassable. On the one side of it are 
some gleams of light ; but on the other all is impenetrable darkness. 

Revealed theology is founded on that mysterious distinction in the 
Divine Essence which we call the Trinity; a distinction which Reason 
could never have discovered, and which only God himself could disclose. 
It also unfolds the wise and benevolent counsels of God respecting our 
fallen race, of which no trace can be looked for in creation, as they 
relate to a state of things posterior to creation, and differing from that 
state in which man was originally placed. 

It is true some Christian writers have asserted that in the works of 
God there is an obscure revelation of grace; and the celebrated infidel, 
Lord Herbert, has laid it down as one of his five articles of natural re- 
ligion, that " if men repent of their sins God will forgive them." But 
nature teaches no such doctrine, for there is nothing in Creation, or even 
in the dispensations of Divine Providence, which indicates an intention 
on the part of God to pardon his disobedient creatures. And farther, 
the principle which is assumed by Lord Herbert, as the dictate of nature, 
is false, for God does not pardon sinners on mere repentance. He re- 
quires an atonement, but of this nature gives no indication. 

We conclude, then, from all which we have seen, that a Revelation 
was necessary, if even it had gone no farther than to shed light upon 
the doctrines of natural religion, and to dissipate the doubts which 
reason could not solve. These doctrines, which were more or less in- 
teresting to all, were especially so to men of reflection ; but the success 
of their inquiries was by no means commensurate with the earnestness 
of their wishes. To men in these circumstances a Revelation must be 
as acceptable as is the rising of the sun to the bewildered traveler, who 
is anxiously seeking the place of his destination, but cannot find it amid 
the darkness of the night. 

This necessity of a Revelation would exist to a very considerable 
extent, even if reason in some cases were capable of discovering all the 
religious knowledge that is necessary. The strongest believers in the 
sufficiency of reason will admit that we cannot gain a knowledge of the 
principles of natural theology from the investigation of nature itself 
without close and persevering study ; but every one must see that this 
would place the acquisition beyond the reach of a majority of mankind. 
There are many whose intellectual faculties are naturally weak, whose 
minds have not been improved by education, and whose daily occupa- 
tions afford them but little leisure for inquiry and reflection. Such per- 



32 INTRODUCTION. [Part II, § 2. 

sons are apt to be misled by false opinions, and distracted by worldly 
cares, and to neglect those objects which require abstraction of mind 
and patient investigation. The infidel himself is compelled to acknowl- 
edge that Reason has generally failed to lead men to a rational system 
of religion. 

It is manifest, therefore, that a Revelation which should point out at 
once, and to all, the doctrines which reason could discover only by a 
tedious process, would be a most invaluable gift to the world. On this 
subject no doubt can be entertained. Such a Revelation has been 
granted, and what is the consequence ? The doctrines of natural re- 
ligion are better understood than they could otherwise be : they are 
known not only to men of contemplative minds, but to the illiterate, 
and we become acquainted with them in the morning of life. There are 
thousands of young persons in every Christian country whose religious 
knowledge far exceeds that of the wisest heathen philosopher. They 
have learned more by a few lessons of revealed truth than he could 
acquire by the painful researches of .a long life. 

The necessity of a Divine Revelation may be farther argued, 

2. From the concessions of heathen philosophers. 

There are many passages in the writings of the heathens which 
show, that while they were conscious of their ignorance on religious 
subjects, they were persuaded that there was no remedy for it, except 
in some Divine interposition. "The various apprehensions of wise 
men," says Cicero, " will justify the doubtings and demurs of skeptics, 
and it will then be sufficient to blame them when others agree, or any 
one has found out the truth. We say not that nothing is true, but that 
some false things are annexed to all that is true, and that with so much 
likeness, that there is no certain note of judging what is true, or assent- 
ing to it. We deny not that something may be true ; but we deny that 
it can be perceived so to be, for what have we certain concerning good 
and evil ? Nor for this are we to blame, but nattjke, which has hidden 
the truth in the deep."* 

"The truth is," says Plato, speaking of future rewards and punish- 
ments, "to determine or establish anything certain about these matters, 
in the midst of so many doubts and disputations, is the work of God 
only." Again, one of the speakers in his Phsedo says to Socrates con- 
cerning the immortality of the soul : " I am of the same opinion with 
you, that in this life it is either absolutely impossible, or extremely diffi- 
cult, to arrive at a clear knowledge in this matter." In his apology for 
Socrates, he puts these words into his mouth: "You may pass the 
remainder of your days in sleep, or despair of finding out a sufficient 
expedient for this purpose, if God, in his providence, do not send you 
some other instruction." 

But there is a most remarkable passage in Plato's dialogue between 
* See De Nat. Deorum, 1. 1, n. 10, 11. Acad. Qu., 1. 2, n. 66, 120. 



Part II, § 2.] SOURCES OF THEOLOGY : REVELATION. 33 

Socrates and Alcibiades, on the duties of religious worship. The design 
of the dialogue is to convince Alcibiades that men, on account of their 
great ignorance, should be exceedingly cautious in their addresses to 
the gods, and should content themselves with very general prayers, or, 
what is better, not pray at all. " To me," says he, " it seems best to be 
quiet ; it is necessary to wait till you learn how you ought to behave 
toward the gods and toward men." "When," exclaims Alcibiades, 
" when, O Socrates ! shall that time be, and who will instruct me ? for 
most willingly would I see this man, who he is." " He is one," replies 
Socrates, " who cares for you ; but, as Homer represents Minerva as 
taking away darkness from the eyes of Diomedes, that he might distin- 
guish a god from a man, so it is necessary that he should first take away 
the darkness from your mind, and then bring near those things by 
which you shall know good and evil." " Let him take away, if he will," 
rejoins Alcibiades, "the darkness or any other thing, for I am prepared 
to decline none of those things which are commanded by him, whoever 
this man is, if I shall be made better."* 

This passage is truly curious, and deserves our particular attention as 
a proof of the longings of the ancient sages for such a Revelation as 
God has given to the world. The wisest philosopher of antiquity 
acknowledged its necessity, and ventured to anticipate it, without, how- 
ever, knowing what he said. His disciple was transported at the 
thought, and declared his readiness to submit to the lessons of his 
desired teacher. It is only among unbelievers of modern times — the 
"men of reason," as they would be accounted— that the idea of a 
Divine Revelation is held up to ridicule, and the sufficiency of Reason 
maintained. 

But we have a most conclusive proof of the necessity of a Revelation 
from God, 

3. In the debasing and demoralizing tendency of all pagan religions. 

It cannot be denied that the very systems of religion and established 
forms of worship among heathens, instead of being calculated to pre- 
serve men in the practice of morality and virtue, only served to plunge 
them into vice and degrading superstition. They paid divine worship 
to oxen, to crocodiles, to birds, and to reptiles. They metamorphosed 
beasts into gods, and conversely transformed their gods into beasts, 
ascribing to them drunkenness, unnatural lusts, and the most loathsome 
vices. They worshiped drunkenness, under the name of Bacchus ; and 
laseiviousness, under that of Venus. Momus was to them the god of 
calumny, and Mercury the god of thieves. Even Jupiter, the greatest 
of their gods, they considered to be an adulterer. At length the worship 
of avowedly evil beings became prevalent among them ; and hence, 
many of their rites were cruel and contrary to humanity, and the licen- 
tiousness and impurity of their whole religious system became notorious. 

* Platonis Alcibiad.. II. 
3 



34 INTRODUCTION. [Part II, § 2. 

Thus, to select a few instances out of many, the rites of the goddess 
Cybele were no less infamous for lewdness than for cruelty; and the 
practice of these rites spread far and wide, and formed part of the public 
worship at Rome. The aphrodisia, or festivals in honor of Venus, were 
observed with lascivious ceremonies in many parts of Greece; and 
Strabo tells us that there was a temple at Corinth so rich that it main- 
tained more than a thousand harlots, sacred to her service. The feasts 
of Bacchus were equally impure and licentious ; and according to Her- 
odotus, many of the Egyptian rites were cruel and shockingly obscene. 
The floralia among the Romans, or their festivals in honor of Flora, the 
goddess of flowers, were celebrated for four days together by the most 
shameful actions, and with the most unbounded licentiousness. 

The horrible practice of offering human sacrifices was for many ages 
very general in the heathen world. It obtained among the Phoeni- 
cians, Syrians, Arabians, Carthaginians, and other people of Africa ; and 
among the Egyptians, till the time of Amasis. The same is asserted con- 
cerning the Thracians, the ancient Scythians, the Gauls, the Germans, 
and the Britons. And though this rite was not so common among the 
Greeks and Romans, as among some other nations, yet they practiced 
It for a long time on extraordinary occasions, as being the most meri- 
torious sacrifice that could be offered to the gods.* 

Indeed, when we examine the history of the ancient pagan world, we 
are struck with the accuracy of the description which is given of them 
by St. Paul in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. He 
asserts that they " changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an 
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, 
and creeping things." And as they were not willing to retain the 
knowledge of God, they were judicially given up to un cleanness and a 
reprobate mind. Hence the apostle tells us that they were " filled with 
all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, malicious- 
ness ;" that they were "full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;" 
and that they were " whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, 
proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without 
understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, 
unmerciful." 

If we direct our attention to heathen nations of the present age, such 
as Tartary, the Philippine Islands, and many parts of Africa, China, and 
Hindoostan, we learn, from the unanimous testimony of navigators and 
travelers, that they are enveloped in the grossest ignorance and idolatry, 
and that their religious worship, doctrines, and practices are equally 
corrupt with those of the pagan nations of antiquity. 

With regard to Hindoostan in particular, though her inhabitants are 

* See Leland's Necess. and Advan. of Revelation ; Clarke's Evid. of Nat. and Rev. 
Religion; Gregory's Letters on Christian Religion; Home's Introduction, voL i; and 
Hartley on Man, vol. ii. 



Part II, §2.] SOUECES OF THEOLOGY: REVELATION. 35 

celebrated for their progress in the useful arts, and for intellectual acute- 
ness, yet her polytheism is of the grossest and most debasing kind. 
There are not fewer than three hundred and thirty millions of deities 
claiming the adoration of their votaries ! Her religion enjoins rites the 
most impure, penances the most toilsome, and modes of self-torture 
almost innumerable, and as exquisite in degree as human nature can 
sustain. The burying alive or burning of widows, infanticide, the im- 
mersion of the sick and dying in the Ganges, and self-devotement to 
destruction by the idol Juggernaut, are among the horrid practices 
which flow from her established system of idolatry, and which have 
never been exceeded in folly and ferocity by any to which Paganism has 
given birth.* 

Let our argument then, be summed up. 

We have seen that the light of human reason was too weak to con- 
duct heathen philosophers to just conclusions, either with respect to 
the fundamental doctrines of natural religion, or to the principles of a 
pure morality; that the heathen sages themselves felt and acknowl- 
edged the insufficiency of reason in matters of religion, and strongly 
desired some direct communication from the gods ; and that the re- 
ligions of all Pagan nations, both ancient and modern, instead of elevat- 
ing men and purifying their moral nature, have exerted upon them a 
most corrupting and demoralizing influence. 

These are the facts, and they affect not only a small portion of man- 
kind, but all who have not had the benefits of the Holy Scriptures. 
Where the Bible is unknown there is not, and never has been, since 
the corruption of the primitive religion, a religious system containing 
just views of God and of religious truth, or which has enjoined a cor- 
rect morality, or even opposed any effectual barrier against the deterio- 
ration of public manners. 

These facts cannot be denied, and the conclusion is therefore irresist- 
ible, that an express Revelation of the will of God, accompanied by 
efficient corrective institutions, had become necessary, and is still de- 
manded by the religious and moral condition of every part of the earth 
into which Christianity has not been introduced. 

Having then shown the possibility and the necessity of a Divine 
Revelation, we will proceed to consider, 

III. Its probable character. 

If there is ground to presume that God, in his compassion for his 
creatures, would not leave them without a direct and clear communica- 
tion of his will, there is equal ground to presume that this communica- 
tion, whenever made, should be of such a nature, and accompanied by 
such circumstances, as would most effectually meet the wants of the 
world. 

Presumptions as to the nature and manner of such a Revelation, we 

* Asiatic Researches, vol. viii. 



36 INTRODUCTION. [Part II, § 2. 

will allow, ought to be guarded ; but, without violating this rule, it may, 
from the obviousness of the case, be presumed, 1. That it should con- 
tain explicit information on those subjects which are of most importance 
to mankind, and in regard to which they have most fatally erred. 
2. That it should accord with the principles of former revelations, 
should any have been given. 3. That it should have a satisfactory ex- 
ternal authentication. And, 4. That it should contain provisions for its 
effectual promulgation among all classes of men. All this, allowing 
the necessity and the probability of a Divine Revelation, must cer- 
tainly be expected ; but this expectation is fully met in the Christian 
System. 

1. It gives explicit information in regard to the nature and perfections 
of God ; his will, as the rule of moral actions; the means of obtain- 
ing pardon and of conquering vice; the true Mediator between God 
and man; Divine Providence; the chief good of man, respecting 
which alone more than three hundred different opinions among the an- 
cient sages have been reckoned up ; the accountability and immortal- 
ity of man; and a future state of retribution. 

2. It accords with the principles of former Revelations. The veracity 
of God requires, that so far as one Revelation renews, explains, or adds 
to another, it must agree with the previous communication. 

Now whatever direct proof may be adduced in favor of the Divine 
authority of the Jewish and the Christian Revelations, there is this in 
their favor: that they have a substantial agreement and harmony among 
themselves, and with that traditional system which existed in the 
earliest ages of the world. As to the patriarchal religion, to which 
reference has several times been made, we have ample information in 
the book of Job, from which venerable relic a copious body of doctrinal 
and practical theology might be collected.* 

It recognizes in the clearest manner the Being and Attributes of 
God ; the corrupt and helpless condition of man ; the offering of pro- 
pitiatory sacrifices, as of Divine appointment ; the expectation of a 
Divine Redeemer ; the immortality of the soul ; the resurrection of the 
body ; and a future judgment. It condemns immoral actions and 
vicious passions, as violations of the laws of God; and speaks of purity 
of heart, kindness, compassion to the poor, and cheerful submission to 
the will of God, as virtues of the highest obligation. 

Such was the comprehensive system of patriarchal theology ; and it 
would be easy to show that these great principles are all recognized and 
taken up in the successive Revelations by Moses, and by Christ. Here 
then are three religious systems, introduced at widely distant periods, 
and by agents greatly differing in their condition and circumstances, 

-* There is sufficient evidence that Job lived between the flood of Noah and the call- 
ing of Abraham ; and that the book which bears his name was written not later than 
the time of Moses. 



Part II, § 2.] SOURCES OF THEOLOGY : REVELATION. 37 

but they exactly harmonize in every leading doctrine, and agree in their 
great moral end — perfect purity of heart and conduct. 

3. It was accompanied by an external authentication, of such a na- 
ture as to leave no reasonable doubt of its Divine authority. 

The reason of this is obvious. A mere impression of truth on the 
understanding could not be distinguished from a discovery made by the 
human intellect, and could therefore have no authority as a Revelation 
from God, either with the person receiving it, or with others to whom 
he might promulge it. Hence an authentication of revealed truth, ex- 
ternal to the Revelation itself, is necessary to give it authority, and to 
create the obligation of obedience. 

The authority of the ancient patriarchal religion rested on external 
evidence. The received opinion was, that the Almighty Lawgiver, 
under celestial appearances, conversed with our first parents, and with 
the patriarchs ; and that his laws thus delivered were authenticated by 
his kindness to the obedient and his judgments upon the rebellious. It 
was in consequence of the deep impress of Divinity which this system 
received in the earliest ages, from the attestation of singular judgments, 
and especially the flood, that it was universally transmitted, and waged 
so long a war against religious corruptions. 

But the primitive system, being traditional, was liable to alteration 
and abuse. Hence, notwithstanding its original authentication as a 
matter of Divine Revelation, and the effects which it produced in the 
world for many ages, it was at length so much corrupted by transmis- 
sion, and its external evidence so greatly weakened by the lapse of time, 
that some merciful interposition on the part of God was rendered neces- 
sary by the general ignorance of mankind. Indeed, the primitive 
Revelations supposed subsequent ones, and were not, in themselves, re- 
garded as complete. 

But if only a republication of the primitive truth had been necessary, 
it would have required a new authentication, in a form adapted to the 
circumstances of the world, and the same would be true of every en- 
larged or additional Revelation. If we presume, therefore, that a new 
Revelation was necessary, we must presume that, when given, it would 
have an external authentication as coming from God, from which there 
could be no reasonable appeal ; and we therefore conclude, that as the 
Mosaic and the Christian Revelations profess both to republish and to 
enlarge former Revelations, the circumstance of their resting their 
claims on the external evidence of miracles and prophecy is a presump- 
tion in their favor. 

4. It contains provisions for its effectual promulgation among all 
classes of men. 

As the Revelation in question was designed to restore and enlarge the 
communications of truth, and as tradition had become an imperfect 
medium of conveying it, the fair presumption is, that the persons 



38 INTRODUCTION. [Part II, § 2. 

th ough whom the communication was made should record it in 
wkiting, as being the most natural and effectual means of preserving it. 
Any corruption of the record would be rendered impracticable, by its 
being publicly taught in the first instance; by a standard copy being 
preserved with care ; or by such a number of copies being dispersed as 
to defy material alteration. This presumption is realized both in the 
Jewish and the Christian Revelations, as will be seen when the authority 
of the Holy Scriptures comes to be discussed. They were first publicly 
taught, then committed to writing, and copies were multiplied. 

Another method of preserving and diffusing the knowledge of a 
Revelation once made would be the institution of public commemora- 
tive rites. These also we find in the Revelations of Moses and of 
Christ, at once preserving the memory both of great events themselves, 
and of the doctrines connected with them. 

If it was reasonable to expect a Revelation, it was equally reasonable 
to presume that it should contain some injunctions favorable to its 
propagation among men of all ranks. For, as the compassion of God 
to the moral necessities of his creatures, generally, is the ground on 
which so great a favor rests, it is not to be restricted to any one class 
of men, but to be extended to all. 

This reasonable expectation is also realized in the Mosaic and the 
Christian Revelations. Both provide for their general publication ; both 
instituted an order of men, not to conceal, but to read and teach, the 
truth committed to them ; both recognized a right in the people to 
search the record, and by it to judge of the ministrations of the priests ; 
both made it obligatory on the people to be taught ; and both sepa- 
rated one day in seven to afford leisure for that purpose. 

Nothing but such a Revelation, and with such accompanying circum- 
stances, appears capable of reaching the actual case of mankind, and of 
effectually instructing and bringing them under moral control; and, 
whether the Bible can be proved to be of Divine authority or not, this 
at least must be granted: that it presents itself to us under these cir- 
cumstances, and claims, for this very reason, our most serious and 
candid attention. 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



BOOK I. 

EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE REVELATION. 

We now proceed to inquire whether we have sufficient reason to con- 
clude that the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament are a Revela- 
tion from God. This is a question of the greatest importance ; for it is 
universally acknowledged among us that the Bible is the only book in 
the world whose claims to Divine authority are worthy of serious 
examination. If, therefore, the advantage of supernatural and infalli- 
ble instruction has been afforded to man, it must be found in that 
alone. 

Every humble and sincere man who is conscious of his own infirmity, 
and who knows the perplexities in which the wisest of men have been 
involved on religious and moral subjects, will desire to find at length 
an infallible guide, and will therefore examine the evidences of the 
Bible with an anxious wish that he may find sufficient reason to ac- 
knowledge its Divine authority. And should he be disappointed he 
will feel that he has met with a painful misfortune, and not a matter of 
triumph. This temper of mind is perfectly consistent with a full and 
even severe examination of the claims of Scripture, and he who is desti- 
tute of it is neither a sincere nor an earnest inquirer after truth. 

That the Bible is in favor of the highest virtues, cannot be denied. 
It both prescribes them, and affords the strongest possible motives to 
their cultivation. It might be confidently put to every candid person, 
however skeptical, whether the universal observance of the morality of 
the Scriptures, by all ranks and classes of men, would not produce the 
most beneficial changes in society, and secure general peace, friendship, 
and happiness. If, therefore, he who investigates the Divine authority 



40 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE KEVELATION. [Book I. 

of the Holy Scriptures lias had the means of even a superficial acquaint- 
ance with their contents, he ought, if a lover of virtue as well as of 
truth, to be predisposed in their favor. 

In the investigation of the truth of revealed religion we will direct 
our attention, 1. To the evidences which are necessary to authenticate 
a Divine Revelation; 2. To the genuineness of the Holy Scriptures ; 3. 
To their authenticity / 4. To their integrity; and, 5. To their Divine 
authority. 



CHAPTER I. 

EVIDENCES NECESSARY TO AUTHENTICATE A DIVINE 
EEVELATION. 

The Evidences in proof of the Divine authority of the Sacred Scrip- 
tures may be divided into External, Internal, and Collateral. 
The External Evidence consists of miracles and prophecy ; the Internal 
Evidence is drawn from the nature and moral tendency of the doctrines 
taught ; and the Collateral Evidence arises from a variety of circum- 
stances, which indirectly prove the Revelation to be divinely inspired. 

§ 1. Of External Evidence. 

The principal and most appropriate evidence of a Revelation from 
God must be external to the Revelation itself. If, therefore, any person 
should profess to have received a Revelation from God to teach to man- 
kind, and that he was directed to command their obedience to it on 
pain of the Divine displeasure, he would be asked for some external 
authentication of his mission. He miofht believe that a Divine commu- 
nication had been made to himself; but his belief would have no au- 
thority to command ours. Nor could we have any means, without 
external proof, of knowing that he had received such communication. 
Internal evidence alone could not be a sufficient proof; for we could 
not tell whether his doctrines, however excellent, might not be the 
fruits of his own mental labor. To us, therefore, they could only have 
the authority of mere human opinions; and though their reasonableness 
and excellence might entitle him to attention and respect, without some 
external authentication he could not command. 

Agreeable to this, the authors both of the Jewish and Christian 
Scriptures profess to have authenticated their mission by the two 
great external proofs, Miracles and Prophecy; and it remains to be 
considered whether a mission to teach the will of God to man is suffi- 



Chap. I, §1.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: MIRACLES. 41 

ciently authenticated when miracles are really performed, and prophe- 
cies unequivocally accomplished. 

I. Miracles. — In looking at these, as an external and authenticating 
proof of Divine Revelation, we may consider, 

1. Their Nature. — In & philosophic sense, a miracle is an event which 
is inconsistent with some known law of nature, or contrary to the set- 
tled constitution and course of things. Accordingly, miracles presup- 
pose an established system of nature, within the limits of which they 
operate, and with the order of which they disagree. 

In a theological sense, a miracle is an event contrary to the estab- 
lished constitution and course of things, effected by the interposition of 
God for the proof of some particular doctrine, or in attestation of the 
authority of some particular person.* 

The miracles recorded in the Holy Scriptures agree with the theo- 
logical meaning of the term. They were wrought immediately by God 
himself, to attest the Divine mission of particular persons, and to au- 
thenticate their doctrines ; or by some superior creatures, commissioned 
by him for the same purpose ; or by men, in order to ,prove that they 
were invested with Divine authority. 

In order to distinguish a real miracle, it is necessary that we should 
understand the common course of nature, for, without some knowledge 
of the operations of physical causes, we might deem an event miracu- 
lous merely because it is strange and inexplicable. Should an earth- 
quake happen in a country where men had never heard of such a 
calamity, by the ignorant it might be considered miraculous ; whereas, 
it is a regular effect of the established laws of nature. 

But as we have at best only a partial knowledge of these laws, it 
seems necessary that such miracles as are intended to authenticate a 
Divine Revelation should be effected upon objects whose properties are 
well understood, and that they should be evidently contrary to some 
known laws by which such objects have been uniformly governed ; or, 
that their apparent cause should be known to have no adequate power 
or adaptation to produce them. When these circumstances concur in 
any event, there is sufficient ground to conclude that it is miraculous. 

Assuming, then, for the present, that the works ascribed to Moses 
and to Christ were actually performed by them, they are of such a na- 
ture as to leave no reasonable doubt of their miraculous character. The 
rod cast from the hand of Moses became a serpent. Here the subject 
was well known ; it was a rod; and it was obviously contrary to the 
established course of nature that it should undergo so signal a trans- 
formation. 

* Farmer, in his "Dissertation on Miracles," denies to created beings, however high, 
the power of working miracles when acting from themselves alone. If they perform 
miracles at all they must do it by a Divine commission, and by the interposition of Divine 
power. Dr. Taylor, of New Haven, takes the same ground. 



42 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE EEVELATION. [Book I. 

The sea is parted at the stretching out of the rod of Moses, and the 
waters stand upon each side, leaving a passage for the host of Israel. But 
there is here no adaptation in the apparent cause to produce the effect, 
which was obviously in direct opposition to the known qualities of 
water. 

It is in the nature of clouds to be carried about by the wind ; but the 
cloud which attended the Israelites in the wilderness rested on their 
tabernacle, moved when they were commanded to march, and directed 
their course. It rested when they were to pitch their tents ; and by 
night, when it is the nature of clouds to become dark, it shone with the 
brightness of fire. In all these cases, therefore, if the facts can be estab- 
lished, there can be no doubt as to their miraculous character. 

" Were a physician instantly to give sight to a blind man, by anoint- 
ing his eyes with a chemical preparation, to the nature and qualities of 
which we were absolute strangers, the cure would be to us wonderful ; 
but we could not pronounce it miraculous, because it might be the 
physical effect of the unguent upon the eyes. But were he to give 
sight to his patient merely by commanding him to receive it, or by 
anointing his eyes with spittle, we should, with the utmost confidence, 
pronounce the cure to be a miracle, because we know that neither the 
human voice nor human spittle has any such power over the diseases of 
the eye." 

"Persons apparently dead are often restored to their families and 
friends by being treated, during suspended animation, in the manner 
recommended by the Humane Society. To the vulgar, and even some- 
times to men of science, these resuscitations appear very wonderful ; 
but as they are known to be effected by physical agency, they cannot 
be miraculous. On the other hand, no one could doubt of his having 
witnessed a real miracle, who had seen a person that had been four days 
dead come alive out of the grave at the call of another."* 

2. Their Possibility. — Those who believe in a Supreme Creator, and 
in the dependence of all things upon his power and will, cannot deny 
the possibility of miracles ; nor is there anything in them inconsistent 
with the wisdom and the immutability of God, or with the perfection 
of his works. They are departures from the ordinary course of God's 
operations ; but not to remedy unforeseen evils, or to repair-imperfections 
in the system of nature. The reasons for them are moral and not 
natural reasons ; and they are wrought to accomplish moral ends. 
They remind us, when they occur, that the power of God is superior to 
nature, and that on him all nature depends. 

3. The Circumstances under vjhich Miracles are an authenticating 
JZvidence. — Granting their possibility, the argument which is drawn from 
them is this: that as the established and known course of nature has 
been fixed by the Creator and Preserver of all things, it can never be 

* Gleig's edition of Stackhouse's History of the Bible, vol. iii, p. 241. 



Chap. I, §1.] EXTEENAL EVIDENCE: MIRACLES. 43 

counteracted but by himself, or by other beings at his command, and 
by his assistance. To deny this, is to deny the omnipotence and nat- 
ural government of God. 

But miracles, in order to be an authentication of a Divine mission, 
must be effected by the power of God for this very purpose. The fol- 
lowing circumstances are sufficient to establish this fact : 1. When the 
miracles occur only in connection with an actual profession of certain 
persons that they have a mission from God, and while they are en- 
gaged in the proper functions of their office. In this there would be a 
strong presumption that the works were wrought by God in order to 
authenticate this pretension. 2. When they are performed by the per- 
sons themselves, at their own will, and for the express purpose of estab- 
lishing their mission. If the works are real miracles, it is then clear 
that God is with them, and that his co-operation is an authenticating 
and visible seal upon their commission. 

But though it should be allowed, that when real miracles occur 
under the circumstances which we have mentioned they are satisfactory 
evidences of a Divine mission, and that eye-witnesses of such miracles 
would be bound to admit the proof; it has been made a question, 
whether their testimony affords to others sufficient evidence that such 
events actually took place, and whether we are bound to acknowledge 
the authority of that mission in attestation of which the miracles are 
said to have been wrought. 

If we assume the negative, either the benefits of a Revelation must 
be confined to those who witnessed its attestation by miracles, or 
similar attestations must be afforded to every man. But as no religious 
system can plead the authentication of perpetual miracles, either this 
principle is unsound, or we must abandon all hope of discovering a re- 
ligion of Divine authority. 

These remarks will lead us to notice, 

4. The Competency of human Testimony to establish the Credibility 
of Miracles. — As miracles are facts, they, like other facts, may be re^ 
ported ; and, from the nature of the miracles in question, the com- 
petency of any man of ordinary understanding to determine whether they 
were actually wrought, cannot be doubted. If, therefore, the witnesses 
are credible ; and if, in matters of the greatest moment in common life, 
we should not hesitate to act upon their testimony, it would be mere 
perverseness to reject it in the case of miracles. 

Mr. Hume denies the credibility of miracles on the ground of human 
testimony. The substance of his objection is this : Experience is the 
ground of the credit which we give to human testimony ; but this ex- 
perience is by no means constant, for men often prevaricate and deceive. 
It is experience, in like manner, which assures us of those laws of na- 
ture, in the violation of which the notion of a miracle consists ; but this 
experience is constant and uniform. Hence, it is contrary to experi- 



44 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE REVELATION. [Book I. 

ence that miracles should be true, but not contrary to experience that 
human testimony should be false ; and, therefore, no human testimony 
can, in any case, render them credible. 

To this objection, which has been met at large by many authors,* 
we oppose the following remarks : 

There is an ambiguity in the term " experience," and in the phrase 
" contrary to experience," which ought to be removed. Strictly speak- 
ing, the narrative of a fact is contrary to experience when th,e fact is 
related to have existed at a time and place, at which time and place we, 
being present, did not perceive it to exist ; as if it should be asserted 
that in a particular room, and at a particular hour of a certain day, a 
man was raised from the dead, in which room, and at the time specified, 
we, being present and looking on, perceived no such event. Here the 
assertion is contrary to experience in the proper sense of the phrase ; 
and this is a contrariety which no evidence can surmount, whether the 
fact be miraculous or otherwise. 

But is this the experience and contrariety which Mr. Hume intended 
in the objection ? It certainly is not. When, therefore, he asserts 
that miracles are contrary to experience, he must be understood to 
mean, either that we ourselves have not experienced them, (which is 
properly a want of experience, and not a contradiction of it,) or, that 
they have not been generally experienced by others. We say, "not 
generally y" for to assert that no miracle was ever experienced is to as- 
sume the subject in controversy. 

To argue against miracles from the supposed unalterable course of 
nature, is a mere begging of the question. It is to argue upon a suppo- 
sition which is wholly incapable of proof: that the course of nature is 
indeed so unalterably fixed, that even God himself, by whom its laws 
were ordained, cannot, when he sees fit, suspend their operation. On 
the other hand, to expect that miracles should become a matter of 
common experience, is to expect what is contrary to their nature, what 
would make them cease to be miracles, and what would totally destroy 
the purpose for which they were wrought. 

Mr. Hume attempts to adjust, in a sort of metaphysical balance, the 
degrees of probability resulting from what he is pleased to call " oppo- 
site experiences y" that is, the experience of men's veracity on the one 
hand, and of the unalterable laws of nature on the other. But it will 
at once appear, that he only weighs the experience of those who never 
had the opportunity of witnessing a miracle, against the experience of 
those who declare that they were eye-witnesses of the fact. Instead, 
therefore, of weighing opposite experiences, properly so called, he is 
only balancing total inexperience on the one hand, against positive ex- 
perience on the other. 

* See Campbell's Dissertations on Miracles; Paley's Evidences; Adam's Essay on 
Miracles ; Bishop Douglas's Criterion ; Dwight's Theology, vol. 2 ; and Chalmers. 



Chap. I, §1.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: MIRACLES. 45 

There is a palpable fallacy in representing the experience of mankind 
as being opposite to the testimony on which our belief of miracles is 
founded. For the opposite experiences, as they are called, are not con- 
tradictory to each other, since there is no inconsistency in believing 
them both. A miracle necessarily supposes an established and gener- 
ally unaltered course of nature, for in the interception of such a course 
lies the very essence of a miracle. Our experience, therefore, of the 
course of nature leads us to expect its continuance, and to act accord- 
ingly ; but it does not prove that it is absolutely unalterable, nor does 
it set aside valid testimony of a deviation from it. How can our being 
personally unacquainted with a matter of fact which took place a 
thousand years ago, or in a distant part of the world, warrant us in 
rejecting the testimony of personal witnesses of the event? Common 
sense revolts at the absurdity of considering one man's ignorance or 
inexperience as a counterpoise to another man's knowledge and experi- 
ence of a matter of fact. Yet on no better foundation does this favor- 
ite argument of infidelity rest. 

But we may also remark, that " the evidence arising from human 
testimony is not solely derived from experience. On the contrary, tes- 
timony has a natural influence on belief, antecedent to experience. The 
early and unlimited assent given to testimony by children, gradually 
contracts as they advance in life ; and it is therefore more consonant to 
truth to say, that our diffidence in testimony is the result of experience, 
than that our faith in it has this foundation." 

" Besides, the uniformity of experience in favor of any fact is not a 
proof against its being reversed in a particular instance. The evidence 
arising from the single testimony of a man of known veracity, will go 
farther to establish a belief of its being actually reversed. And if his 
testimony be confirmed by a few others of the same character, we can- 
not withhold our assent to the truth of it." 

"Now, though the operations of nature are governed by uniform 
laws, and though Ave have not the testimony of our senses in favor of 
any violation of them ; still, if in particular instances we have the testi- 
mony of thousands of our fellow-creatures, and those, too, men of strict 
integrity, swayed by no motives of ambition or interest, but governed 
by the principles of common sense, that they were actually witnesses of 
these violations, the constitution of our nature obliges us to believe 
them."* 

We have now shown the nature and possibility of real miracles ; that 
under certain circumstances they are to be regarded as a sufficient 
authentication, both of the Divine mission of those who performed them, 
and of the doctrines which they taught ; that as facts they are proper 
subjects of human testimony, and that credible testimony respecting 
them lays a competent foundation for our belief in them, and in those 
* Reasonableness of Christianitj. 



46 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE REVELATION. [Book I. 

Revelations which they were clearly designed to attest. Thus, the 
way is prepared for the consideration of the miracles recorded in 
Scripture. 

II. Prophecy. This is the other great branch of the external evi- 
dence of a Revelation from God, and its nature and force may be 
pointed out before we examine either the miracles or the prophecies of 
the Bible. For, by ascertaining the general principles on which this 
kind of evidence rests, the consideration of particular cases will be ren- 
dered more easy and satisfactory. We will notice, 

1. The Nature of Prophecy. — It may be denned to be u a miracle 
of knowledge?"* It is a declaration, description, or representation of 
something future, which is beyond the power of human sagacity to dis- 
cover or calculate. 

Prophecy is a miracle, because, to foresee and foretell future events, 
to which no existing cause necessarily and evidently leads, no train of 
probabilities points, is as much beyond the ability of man as to cure 
diseases with a word, or even to raise the dead. It is a miracle, too, the 
proof of which remains within itself. That such actions as may be prop- 
erly termed miracles of power were ever performed, can be proved, at a 
distant period, only by human testimony, against which cavils may be 
raised, or causes for doubt advanced. But the man who reads a 
prophecy, and perceives the corresponding event, is himself the witness 
of the miracle. He sees that thus it was predicted, and that thus it has 
come to pass. 

Prophecies yet unfulfilled are miracles which at present are incom- 
plete. These may be regarded as the seeds of future conviction, ready 
to grow up and bear their fruit whenever the corresponding facts shall 
be exhibited on the theater of the world. This kind of evidence has 
been so admirably contrived by the wisdom of God, that, in proportion 
as the lapse of ages might seem to weaken the argument derived from 
miracles long since performed, that very lapse serves only to 
strengthen the argument derived from the fulfillment of prophecy. 

2. T7ie Force of its Evidence. — The force of the evidence arising from 
the prediction of such events as human sagacity could not anticipate is 
at once apparent. Such predictions, whether in the form of declara- 
tions, descriptions, or representations of things future, are evidently 
supernatural, and must be divinely inspired. When, for instance, 
the events are distant many years or ages from the time of 
the prediction ; when they depend on causes not so much as 
existing when the prophecy was uttered and recorded, and like- 
wise upon various circumstances and a long arbitrary series of 
things, and the fluctuating uncertainties of human volitions; and 
especially when they depend not at all upon any external circumstan- 
ces, nor upon any created being, but arise merely from the counsels 
and appointment of God, such events can be foreknown only by an 



Chap. I, §1.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: PROPHECY. 47 

omniscient Being, and can be foretold by him only to whom the " Fa- 
ther of lights "shall reveal them. 

It follows, therefore, that whoever is manifestly endowed with this 
predictive power must, in that instance, speak and act by Divine inspir- 
ation, and what he declares must be received as the word of God. 

The infidel author of " The Moral Philosopher" rather insinuates 
than attempts fully to establish a dilemma, with which to perplex those 
who regard prophecy as one of the proofs of a Divine Revelation. He 
thinks that either prophecy must respect "necessary events, as depend- 
ing upon necessary causes, which might be certainly foreknown and 
predicted" without any Divine interposition ; or that, if human actions 
are free, the possibility of prophecy must be given up, as it implies fore- 
knowledge, which, if granted, would render them necessary. 

To the first part of this objection we answer, that there are indeed 
many necessary events, dependent upon necessary causes, the existence 
and operation of which are within the compass of human knowledge. 
But to foretell such events would not be to prophesy, any more than to 
say that on a certain day and hour next year there will be an eclipse 
of the sun or moon, when that event has been previously ascertained by 
astronomical calculation. 

Were we to allow that all events were necessary, yet, in a variety 
of instances, the argument from prophecy would not be at all aifected; 
for the foretelling of necessary events in certain circumstances is be- 
yond human intelligence, because they can be known to Him only by 
whose power those necessary causes on which they depend have been 
arranged, and who has prescribed the times of their operation. 

Let us allow, for the sake of illustration, that the prophecy of Isaiah 
respecting the taking of Babylon by Cyrus was uttered, as it purports 
to have been, more than a century before Cyrus was born, and that all 
the actions of Cyrus and of his army, and those of the Babylonian mon- 
arch and his people, were necessitated. Is it to be maintamed that the 
chain of necessitating causes, running through more than a century, 
could be traced by a human mind so as to describe the precise manner, 
in which that fatality would unfold itself, even to the turning of the 
river, the drunken carousal of the inhabitants, and the neglect to shut 
the gates of the city ? This being known to be above all human appre- 
hension, would prove that the prediction was really a communication 
from God. Were events therefore subject to invincible fate, there might 
nevertheless be prophecy. 

The other branch of the dilemma is founded on the notion that, if we 
allow the freedom of human actions, prophecy is impossible, because 
certain foreknowledge is contrary to that freedom, and renders events 
necessary. 

Our reply is, that the objection is founded on a false assumption, the 
Divine foreknowledge having no more influence in making any future 



48 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE REVELATION. [Book I. 

event necessary than human knowledge, in the degree in which it may 
exist. There is no moral causality in knowledge. This lies in the will, 
which is the determining and acting principle in every moral agent. 
The infallible judgment of God respecting contingent events no more 
causes them to be necessary, than our knowledge of a present truth is 
any cause of its being either true or present. 

Things which depend upon a chain of necessary causes must be neces- 
sary, and as such God foreknows them ; but it by no means follows that, 
from the foreknowledge of God concerning events which depend upon 
free causes, things otherwise supposed to be free will thereby unavoid- 
ably become necessary. The whole question lies in this : is the simple 
knowledge of an action a necessitating cause of the action ? The answer 
must be in the negative, as every man's consciousness and common 
sense will assure him. 

§ 2. Of Internal Evidence. 

The second kind of evidence in attestation of a Divine Revelation is 
called Internal • to the nature of which, as also to its rank in the scale 
of evidence, we will briefly turn our attention. 

1. Its Nature. — Internal evidence is that kind of evidence which 
arises from a consideration of the doctrines taught in the Holy Scrip- 
tures, as being consistent with the character of God, and promotive of 
the happiness of man. It is derived from the wonderful sublimity of 
the sacred volume, the perfect purity of its moral precepts, the pro- 
fundity and importance of its discoveries, the exact agreement of all 
its parts, and its obvious tendency to promote the wellbeing of man- 
kind. 

2. Its Rank in the scale of Evidence. — On this subject very different 
opinions have been entertained. Some have advanced the notion that 
internal evidence ought not to be ranked, as a leading proof, with mir- 
acles and prophecy, because the proof from them is decisive and abso- 
lute. But for the same reason prophecy might be excluded from the 
rank of leading evidence, inasmuch as miracles alone are decisive and 
absolute. If there is any force at all in the argument from miracles, it 
goes the full length of rational proof of a Divine attestation, both to him 
who witnesses the miracles, and to him to whom they^ are credibly 
reported ; and nothing more is absolutely necessary to enforce a rational 
conviction. 

But should it please the Author of a revelation to superadd the farther 
evidence of prophecy, and also that of the obvious truthfulness and ben- 
eficial tendency of this revelation, it ought not to be disregarded, or 
thought to be of trifling import in its favor. For, though this addi- 
tional evidence may not be necessary to establish a rational proof, it 
may have a tendency to rouse attention, and to leave objectors more 
obviously without excuse. 



Chap. I, § 2.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 49 

By others, the internal evidence has been placed first in order and 
importance, and upon it the force of the evidence from miracles and 
prophecy has been made to depend. Nothing, say they, is to be 
received as a revelation from God which does not contain doctrines 
worthy of his character and promotive of the good of mankind. 

This, we reply, is readily admitted. But are we to try a professed 
Revelation by our own notions of what is worthy of God and beneficial 
to mankind ? This would be to assume, that, independent of a Revela- 
tion, we know what God is, and that we are so perfectly acquainted 
with the character, relations, and wants of man as to determine what 
is most for his benefit. This, however, cannot be granted. 

But again, to make internal evidence the primary test of a Divine 
Revelation, is to render the external testimony comparatively unimpor- 
tant. For, if a Revelation is to contain an evidence of its truth, which 
shall be independent of all external testimony, the utility of the evidence 
of miracles is rendered very questionable. It is either unnecessary, or 
it is subordinate and dependent. But this notion is contradicted by the 
whole tenor of the Scriptures; for miracles are everywhere represented 
as. a complete and absolute demonstration of the mission and doctrines of 
those by whom they were performed. 

It is easy to discover the causes which have led to this error in 
regard to the true office and rank of the internal evidence of Revela- 
tion. 

First, a hypothetical case has been assumed, and it has been asked, 
" If a doctrine absurd and wicked should be attested by miracles, is it 
to be admitted as Divine upon their authority ?" The answer is, that 
this is a case which in the nature of things can never occur, and which 
cannot, therefore, be made the basis of an argument. We have seen 
already that a real miracle can be wrought by none but God, or by his 
commission. Therefore, whenever a real miracle takes place, in attest- 
ation of any doctrine, that doctrine cannot be either unreasonable or 
impious. 

The second cause of the error has been, that the rational evidence of 
a Revelation has been confounded with the authenticating evidence* 
When the character, plans, and laws of God are made known, they car- 
ry to the reason of man, so far as they are comprehended, the demon- 
stration which accompanies truth of any other kind. For, as the eye is 
formed to received light, so the rational powers of man are formed to 
receive conviction when the congruity of propositions is made evident. 
This is rational evidence, but it is not authenticating evidence. 

Let us suppose that there is no external evidence to attest the Divine 
mission of those teachers from whom we have received the doctrines 
which appear to us to be so sublime, so important, so true. It will 
then follow that they had no means of knowing these doctrines to be 
from God, or of distinguishing them from the discoveries of their own 

4 



50 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE REVELATION. [Book I, 

mind. And if even they had, we can have no means of knowing that 
they are anything more than mere human opinions. They may be 
true, but of this we can have no infallible proof; for neither our own 
rational faculties, nor those of any other human being, are infallible. 
But even granting them to be true, they cannot be attested to be 
Divine. Add, then, the external testimony, and we have the attesta- 
tion required. The rational evidence of the doctrines, in both cases, is 
the same ; but this evidence is no proof that God revealed them. It is 
in external evidence alone that this proof is found. 

From this distinction the relative importance of the External and 
Internal evidence may be further illustrated. 

Rational evidence of the doctrines proposed to us, when it can be 
had, goes to establish their truth, so far as we can depend upon our 
judgment; but external testimony, if satisfactory, establishes their 
Divine authority, and consequently their absolute truth, leaving no 
appeal. It is of the most simple and decisive kind, and gives to unbe- 
lief the character of obvious perverseness and inconsistency : perverse- 
ness, because there is a clear opposition of the will rather than of the 
judgment in the case; inconsistency, because men act upon a much 
lower degree of evidence in the most important concerns of life. 

In difficult doctrines, of a kind to give rise to a variety of opinions, 
rational evidence is accompanied with doubt; but the attestation of 
miracles rests on principles supported by the universal and constant 
experience of mankind: 1. That a real miracle is above human power; 
2. That men unquestionably virtuous in every other respect are not 
likely to propagate a deliberate falsehood ; and, 3. That they should do 
so not only without advantage, but at the hazard of reproach, persecu- 
tion, and death, contradicts all the known motives to action in human 
nature. 

In strict propriety, therefore, miracles may be considered as the pri- 
mary evidence of the truth of a Revelation, and every other species of 
proof as confirmatory. Prophecy and the internal evidence are lead- 
ing proofs, but neither of them stands in the foremost place. 

§3. Of Collateral Evidence. 

The third kind of evidence by which a Revelation from God may be 
confirmed is the collateral. But here we will only adduce a few 
instances, merely to illustrate this kind of testimony. 

The collateral evidence of a Revelation from God may be its agree- 
ment with former Revelations, should any have been given ; its adapta- 
tion to the condition of the world at the time of its communication, and 
to effect the great moral ends which it proposes ; the agreement of its 
record of facts with the credible traditions and histories of the same 
times ; the monuments, either natural or instituted, which may remain 



Chap. 2.] GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTUEES. 51 

to attest the truth of its history ; the concessions of adversaries in its 
favor ; and, finally, the continuance of its adaptation to the case of the 
human family to the present day. 

We have now briefly considered the several classes of evidence by 
which a Divine Revelation may be authenticated ; but before we pro- 
ceed to a practical application of these evidences it will be necessary to 
establish the Genuineness, the Authenticity, and the Integrity of the 
Holy Scriptures. 



CHAPTER II. 

GENUINENESS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTUEES. 

The genuineness of a book consists in its having been written by the 
author whose name it bears, and should be distinguished from its 
authenticity, with which it is often confounded. The former refers 
exclusively to the authorship of the book in question ; the latter, to the 
correctness of the facts which are detailed in it. A book may there- 
fore be genuine which is not authentic, and one may be authentic 
which is not genuine. 

The history of Sir Charles Grandison is genuine, being indeed written 
by Richardson, the author whose name it bears ; but it is not authentic, 
being a mere production of fictions. Again, the Account of Lord 
Anson's Voyages is an authentic book, being a relation of facts ; but it 
is not genuine, for its real author was not Walters, whose name is 
appended to it, but Benjamin Robins. Hayley's Memoirs of the Life 
of Cowper are both genuine and authentic. They were written by Mr. 
Hayley, and the information which they contain is perfectly reliable. 

In establishing the genuineness of the sacred Scriptures it will be 
proper, 

I. To ascertain the existence, age, and actions of the leading per- 
sons mentioned in them, as the instruments by whom the Revelations 
were made. 

It is not necessary that our attention should be directed to more than 
two of these persons, Moses and Christ ; because the evidence which 
establishes their existence and actions, and the period of both, will also 
establish all that is stated in the same records as to the subordinate 
and succeeding agents. 

The existence and the respective antiquity of Moses and of Christ 
may be satisfactorily proved, 

1. From the Existence of the Jewish Polity and of the Christian Re- 
ligion. — The writings which are ascribed to Moses claim that he was the 



52 EVIDENCES OF A DIVIKE REVELATION". [Book I. 

leader and legislator of the Jews, near sixteen hundred years before the 
Christian era, according to the common chronology. That the Jews 
existed very anciently as a nation cannot be doubted. And that it has 
been an uninterrupted tradition among them, that Moses led them out 
of Egypt, and first gave them their system of laws and religion, is 
equally certain. The history of that event they have in writing, and 
also the laws attributed to him. This history is uncontradicted by the 
authentic records of other nations ; and as their institutions bear the 
marks of a systematic arrangement, established at once, they must have 
been enforced by some political authority, and are to be attributed to 
one superior and commanding mind. The Jews refer them to Moses, 
and if this be denied, it cannot be shown that any other person is 
entitled to that honor. The history therefore can only be denied on 
some principle of skepticism which would equally shake the foundation 
of all history. 

The same observations maybe made in regard to the existence of the 
Founder of the Christian religion. In the records of the New Testa- 
ment he is called Jesus Christ, and his birth is fixed upward of 
eighteen centuries ago. This also is at least uncontradicted testi- 
mony. 

The Christian religion exists, and must have had an author. Like 
the institutions of Moses, it bears the evidence of being the work of one 
mind ; and, as a theological system, it presents no indications of a grad- 
ual and successive elaboration. There was a time when there was no 
such religion as Christianity, and it follows that there once flourished 
a teacher to whom it owed its origin. All tradition and history unite 
in their testimony, that this teacher was Jesus Cheist. 

2. By the Testimony of Ancient Writers. — Manetho, Cheeemon, 
Apollonius, and Ltsimachus are quoted by Josephus as agreeing that 
Moses was the leader of the Jews when they departed from Egypt, 
and the founder of their laws. Steabo, Justin, Pliny, Tacitus, Juve- 
nal, Longinus, and Diodoeus Siculus all speak of Moses ; and Justin 
Martyr expressly says, that most of the historians, poets, lawgivers, and 
philosophers of the Greeks mention him as the leader and prince of the 
Jewish nation. From all these testimonies it is clear that it was com- 
monly received among ancient nations generally, as well as among the 
Jews themselves, that Moses was the founder and lawgiver of the Jew- 
ish state. 

As to Cheist, it is only necessary to give the testimony of two his- 
torians, whose antiquity no one ever thought of disputing. Suetonius 
mentions him by name, and says that Claudius expelled from Rome 
those who adhered to his cause.* Tacitus records the progress which 
the Christian religion had made; the violent death its founder had 

* Judseos impulsore Cliristo assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit. — Suet., Edit.Var., 
p. 544. 



Chap. 2.] GENUINENESS OF THE SCKIPTUKES. 53 

suffered ; that he flourished under the reign of Tiberius ; that Pilate 
was then procurator of Judea, and that the original author of this 
profession was Christ* Thus both the real existence of Christ, and 
the period in which he lived, are exactly ascertained. 

Another important fact in proof of the genuineness of the sacred 
Scriptures is, 

II. Their Antiquity. 

In establishing the antiquity of the books which contain the Jewish 
and the Christian Scriptures we will direct our attention, 

1. To those of the Old Testament. The question before us is, whether 
the books of the Old Testament were written at the respective times 
assigned to them. It is not necessary to go into a critical examination 
of the date of each book separately, for if we can ascertain the period in 
which the five books of Moses were written it will not be a difficult 
matter to settle the date of all the rest. To prove, therefore, that the 
Pentateuch was written synchronically with the exodus of the Jews 
from Egypt, we will present a chain of historical facts which, if duly 
considered, must prove satisfactory to every candid mind. We will 
begin with the apostolic age, and travel backward step by step, as the 
evidence of facts may lead the way. 

(1.) Josephus, who was himself a Jewish priest, and also cotem- 
porary with the apostles, gives us a catalogue of the sacred books of 
the Jews, in which he expressly mentions the five books of Moses, 
thirteen of the prophets, four of Hymns and Moral Precepts ; and if, as 
many critics maintain, Ruth was added to Judges, and the Lamenta- 
tions of Jeremiah to his Prophecies, the number agrees with the books 
of the Old Testament as it is received at the present day. 

This threefold division of the Jewish Scriptures into the Zaw, the 
Prophets, and the Psalms, mentioned by Josephus, was expressly 
recognized before his time by Jesus Christ,f as well as by the subse- 
quent writers of the New Testament. We have therefore sufficient 
evidence that the Old Testament existed at that time ; and if we only 
allow that Jesus Christ was a person of a virtuous character, we are 
bound to conclude that these Scriptures were not corrupted in his day. 
For, when he accused the Pharisees of making the law of no effect by 
their traditions, and when he exhorted his hearers to " search the Scrip- 
tures," he could not have failed to mention the corruptions or forgeries 
of Scripture had any in that age existed. 

(2.) The books of the Old Testament were translated into Greek, for 
the use of the Alexandrian Jews, about two hundred and eighty-seven 
years before the Christian era. This Greek translation, of which almost 
every one has some knowledge, is proof positive that the Hebrew Pen- 

* Auctor nominis ejus Christus, qui Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem Pontium 
Pilatum supplicio affectus erat.— Annal., 1, 5. 

f See Matt, xi, 13 ; Luke xvi, 16 ; Acts xxvi, 22 ; Rom. x, 5. 



54 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE KEVELATION. [Book I. 

tateuch existed at that period. But if it existed two hundred and 
eighty-seven years before Christ it must have existed in the days of 
Ezra, five hundred and thirty-six years before Christ ; for this simple 
reason, that the circumstances of the Jews rendered its composition 
impossible at any point between these two periods. This will appear 
evident if we weigh the next fact to be adduced. 

(3.) The Hebrew language, in which the Old Testament was written, 
ceased to be the living language of the Jews soon after the Babylonish 
captivity ; and the learned agree that there was no grammar for the 
language till many ages after that event. It follows, therefore, that 
every book which is written in pure Hebrew must have been com- 
posed either before or about the time of the captivity. It is also an 
important fact, that after that period the writings of the Jews were 
generally either in Chaldee or Greek. Hence it is utterly impossible 
that the Hebrew Pentateuch could have been written at any period sub- 
sequent to the return of the Jews from Babylon. 

(4.) As this cannot be rationally denied, some have thence contended 
that it was written by Ezra. But to this opinion, however plausi- 
ble some may think it to be, there are insuperable objections. In the 
book of Ezra, " the law of Hoses, the man of God" is particularly 
referred to as a well known written document then actually existing.* 
And in the book of Nehemiah we have an account of the manner in 
which that same written document was openly read to the people, under 
the precise name of " the book of the Law of Moses ■, which the Lord 
had commanded to Israel "\ Nor is this all. It was not that Ezra 
produced a new volume, and then called upon the people to receive it 
as the authentic Law of Moses ; but the people themselves called upon 
Ezra to bring forth and read that book, as a work with which they had 
long been acquainted. 

The Law of Moses, therefore, must have been known to exist as a 
written document previous to the return from Babylon ; and as Ezra 
could not have produced under that name a mere compilation of oral 
traditions, so neither could he have suppressed the ancient volume of 
the Law, nor have set forth, in its stead, that volume which the Jews 
have ever since received as the genuine Pentateuch. Add to this, that 
when the foundation of the second temple was laid, many persons were 
there who well remembered the first temple. These, consequently, 
must have known whether there had or had not been a written Law of 
Moses anterior to the captivity ; nor could they have been deceived by 
the introduction of a new composition, either by Ezra or by any one 
else 

(5.) We have now extant two Hebrew copies of the Law of Moses. 
One is received by the Jews, and the other by the Samaritans ; each 
maintaining that their own is the genuine record. The coincidence of 
* Ezra iii, 2 ; vi, 18. f Neh. viii, 1. 




Chap. 2] GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 55 

these two copies is such as to demonstrate that they were taken from 
the same original. But if so, that original must have existed long 
before the Captivity, as circumstances will show. For, since the Penta- 
teuch was received as the book of the Law both by the ten tribes, and 
also by the two tribes it follows as a necessary consequence, that they 
each received it before they became divided into two kingdoms, which 
event took place about nine hundred and seventy years before Christ. 
Had it been forged in a later age among the Jews, the perpetual enmity 
that existed between them and the Israelites would utterly have prevented 
it from being adopted by the Samaritans ; and had it been a spurious pro- 
duction of the Samaritans, it would never have been received by the Jews. 

(6.) The universal admission of the Pentateuch, as the inspired Law 
of Moses, throughout the whole commonwealth of Israel, prior to its 
disruption into two hostile kingdoms — the magnificent temple of Solo- 
mon, and the whole ritual attached to it, are plain proofs of the pre- 
vious existence of this sacred document. And as the Law strictly pro- 
hibits more than one practice of Solomon, it is incredible either that he 
should have been its author, or that it should have been written under 
his sanction and authority. 

(7.) And with as little probability can we ascribe it to David. His 
life was occupied with almost incessant troubles and warfare ; and it is 
difficult to conceive how a book written by that prince could, in the 
space of a few years, be universally received as the inspired composition 
of Moses. 

(8.) The Pentateuch might be more plausibly ascribed to Samuel 
than to either of those two princes ; but this supposition will not stand 
the test of rational inquiry. For, besides the impossibility that he should 
persuade all Israel to adopt, as the inspired Law o£Moses, a mere mod- 
ern composition of his own, there is this additional fact, that in a speech 
which he made to the assembled Israelites he expressly referred to the 
well known commandment of Jehovah, and to the Divine legation of 
Moses and Aaron. 

(9.) We have now ascended to within four centuries of the exodus 
from Egypt, and the alleged promulgation of the Law from Mount 
Sinai ; and, from Ezra to Samuel, we have found no person to whom 
the composition of the Pentateuch can reasonably be ascribed. The only 
remaining question is, whether it could have been written during the 
three hundred and fifty-six years that intervened between the entrance of 
the Israelites into Palestine, and the appointment of Saul to be their king. 

Now, the whole history of that period utterly forbids such a suppo- 
sition. The Israelites are uniformly described as acknowledging the 
authority of a written Law of Moses. It is declared that Joshua wrote 
the book which bears his name as a supplement to a prior book, which 
is denominated the " hook of the Law." It is likewise asserted that 
this book of the Law is "the look of the Law of Moses ;" a copy of 



56 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE REVELATION. [Book I. 

which, Joshua declares, he had written in the presence of the children 
of Israel. 

Thus, finally, we come to the original, whence the copy of Joshua 
was taken ; for we are told that Moses, with his own hand, wrote the 
words of this Law in a book, and commanded the Levites to put this 
book into the ark of the covenant, that it might be preserved through- 
out their generations. 

These arguments fully establish the genuineness of the books of 
Moses. As to those of the Prophets, it can be proved, from Jewish tra- 
dition, the list of Josephus, the Greek translation, and from their being 
quoted by ancient writers, that they existed many ages before some of 
those events occurred, to which we shall refer in the proper place, as 
unequivocal instances of prophetic accomplishment. 

In pursuing the argument respecting the antiquity and genuineness of 
the sacred books, we will consider, 

2. Those of the New Testament. — Of the ancient date of these books 
we have sufficient proof, 

(1.) In the Quotations which are made from them by early Christian 
Authors. — Quotations from the books of the New Testament are found in 
the writings of Clement, of the first century; and also in those of Igna- 
tius, of Polycarp, of Justin Martyr, of Irenosus, Bishop of Lyons, of 
Athenagoras, of Theophilus of Antioch, and many others. Thus we 
have the testimony of a series of Christian writers, beginning with those 
who were cotemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed 
them, and proceeding in close and regular succession from their time to 
the present. 

This medium of proof is most unquestionable, and is not to be dimin- 
ished by the lapse of ages. Bishop Burnet, in the History of his Own 
Times, inserts various extracts from Lord Clarendon's History. One 
such insertion is a proof that Lord Clarendon's History was extant 
when Bishop Burnet wrote, that it had been read and received by him 
as a work of Lord Clarendon's, and that he regarded it as an authentic 
account of the transactions which it relates, and it will be a proof of 
these facts a thousand years hence. 

The application of this argument to the Gospel History is obvious. 
If the books in which it is contained have been quoted as genuine, by 
a series of writers, up to the age in which their authors lived, it is 
then clear that they must have existed prior to the earliest of those 
writings in which they are quoted, and that they were then regarded 
as genuine. 

(2.) In the early Catalogues of the Christian Scriptures. — Catalogues 
of the books of the New Testament were drawn up by different persons 
at an early period, from which we learn that the books which are now 
acknowledged existed then, and were received as genuine. 

The first catalogue is that of Origen in the year 210, who omits the 



Chap. 2.] GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 57 

Epistle of James, and the Epistle of Jude ; but he acknowledges both of 
them in other parts of his writings. 

The second is the catalogue of Eusebius in the year 315, which is the 
same with ours. He says, however, that a few of the books were dis- 
puted by some. Of the same date is the catalogue of Athanasius, which 
exactly accords with ours. 

The catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem, drawn up in 340, that of the 
Council of Laodicea in 364, and that of Gregory Nazianzen in 375, omit 
the Revelation, but contain all the other books. 

Philostrius, Bishop of Brescia, in 380, leaves out Revelation and the 
Epistle to the Hebrews; but Jerome in 382, Ruffinus in 390, and Au- 
gustine in 394, have all the books of the New Testament, as they are 
now acknowledged. 

Nothing farther is necessary to prove that these books were written 
at the time assigned for their publication, and by the persons to whom 
they are ascribed. There seems, indeed, to have been no doubt rela- 
tive to this matter in the early ages of Christianity. It is true, that by 
some the genuineness of a few of these books was called in question ; 
but this circumstance supplies additional evidence of the genuineness of 
the New Testament Scriptures, by showing that the clearest proof was 
required before any of the books could be acknowledged. When we iind 
that men are far from being credulous, and that while they give assent in 
some instances they withhold it in others, we rest with the greater con- 
fidence in their decisions. 

(3.) In the Testimony of the Enemies of Christianity. — No public 
contradiction of the Gospel history was ever put forth by the Jewish 
rulers, and this silence on their part is important evidence in its favor. 
But the direct testimonies of its adversaries to the facts of the Gospel 
are both numerous and clear. 

Celsus in the second century, Poephyey and Hieeocles in the third, 
and Julian in the fourth, all wrote against Christianity. They have 
given evidence that they were well acquainted with the New Testament 
Scriptures, and that they believed them to have been written by Christ's 
own disciples. Indeed, they never pretended to call this in question, or 
to produce any contrary account, as they surely would have done had 
it been in their power. They quoted passages from the writings of the 
apostles, touching nearly all the leading facts of the Gospel history; 
nor did they deny even the miracles of our Saviour. True, they men- 
tioned these things only with a design to ridicule and expose them ; but 
they afford in'contestible proof, that in their times these Scriptures were 
in existence. 

Among the evidences in support of the genuineness and truth of the 
Christian Scriptures, perhaps none are of more value than the testimo- 
nies of those learned philosophers who wrote against Christianity in its 
first ages. They express no doubt concerning the authenticity of these 



58 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE REVELATION. [Book I. 

Scriptures, nor do they ever insinuate that Christians were mistaken 
in regard to the authors to whom they ascribe them. They confirm the 
prevailing sentiments of the Church respecting those books of the New 
Testament which are called canonical / for their writings show that 
those very books, and not any others, are the books which Christians 
then acknowledged as the rule of their faith, as they now are of ours. 

These writers proposed to overthrow the arguments for the Christian 
religion, and to arrest its progress. But in these designs they had very 
little success in their own times ; and their works, composed and pub- 
lished in the early days of Christianity, are now a testimony in its favor, 
and will be of use in its defense to the latest ages. 

We have thus established the genuineness of the books of the N"ew 
Testament by the testimony of those who had the best opportunities 
of ascertaining whether they were indeed written by the persons whose 
names they bear ; because they lived in the age when these books were 
published, or soon after, and were led by their circumstances to make a 
critical investigation of the whole matter. We receive them, therefore, 
as the genuine works of their respective authors, for the very same rea- 
son that we receive as genuine the writings of Xenophon, of Polybius, 
of Cesar, or of Tacitus ; namely, because we have the uninterrupted 
testimony of ages to their genuineness, and have no reason to suspect 
imposition. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 

Having established the genuineness of the Sacred Scriptures, we 
will proceed, in the next place, to consider their Integrity. 

By the Integrity of the Scriptures is meant, their entire and uncor- 
rupted preservation. This implies, first, that we have now all the books 
which formerly belonged to the Canon; and, secondly, that these books 
have come down to us without any material alteration. We assert, 

I. The Integrity oe the Canon.* 

We are now in possession of all the books which were ever received 
as canonical, either by the Jews or by the primitive Christians. This 
is sufficiently evident, 

1. With respect to the Boohs of the Old Testament. — The list of 
Josephus, the Septuagint translation, and the Samaritan Pentateuch 
clearly prove that the books which we now receive as sacred are the 
very same that were received by the Jews and the Samaritans, long be- 
fore the Christian era. But it is equally evident, 

* See the note at the end of this chapter. 



Chap. 3.] INTEGRITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 59 

2. In regard to the Books of the JSTew Testament. — We have already 
shown, that in the writings of the earliest Christian authors there are 
numerous quotations from nearly all the books now included in the 
New Testament, and references to them by name ; and also, that cata- 
logues of the books which the ancient Christians received as Divine 
were drawn up by Origen, Eusebius, and others. These catalogues, 
which were published at early periods, and in countries distant from 
one another, differ in no material point, and all contain the four Gospels. 
It is therefore certain that we have at present the very books which 
were received by the ancient Christian Church, and that not one of 
them has been lost. 

To this it has been objected, that the Scriptures themselves make 
mention of books which are not now extant : as "the book of the wars 
of the Lord," Num. xxi, 14; "the book of Jasher," Josh x, 13; 
" the book of Nathan " and " the book of Gad," 1 Chron. xxix, 29 ; and 
the Epistle from Laodicea," Col. iv, 16. 

Our answer is this : It cannot be made appear that these are different 
books from what are extant under different titles. But if even this 
could be done, it is not at all requisite to the integrity of the canon of 
Scripture that we should have all the writings of holy and inspired 
men, or all the histories quoted in the Bible. This is proved from the 
consideration that the ancient Jews and Christians had not these books 
in the canon, and yet they never entertained the least doubt of their 
having the entire canon of Sacred Scripture. 

But we maintain the integrity of the Scriptures, 

II. With respect to the pakticular Books. 

These have come down to us without corruption, or any material 
alteration. This we hold to be true, 

1 . With regard to the Old Testament. — The integrity of these Scrip- 
tures will appear both from the impossibility of corrupting them, and 
from the agreement of numerous ancient manuscripts. We will call 
attention, 

(1.) To the Impossibility of corrupting the Jeioish Scriptures. — 
This is put beyond all dispute by the consideration of a few historipal 
facts. 

Before the time of Christ, the profound regard which the Jews had 
for their sacred books rendered any material change in their contents 
impossible. 

The Law being the deed by which the land of Canaan was divided 
among the Israelites, it is improbable that they would suffer it to be 
altered or falsified. The distinction of the twelve tribes, and their sepa- 
rate interests, made it more difficult to alter their Law than that of any 
other nation. 

The Samaritans had the Pentatejich as well as the Jews ; and the 
jealousy and hatred which existed between the two nations made it 



60 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE REVELATION. [Book I. 

impracticable for either to corrupt or alter the text, in anything of con- 
sequence, without certain discovery. 

The general agreement between the Hebrew and the Samaritan Pen- 
tateuch plainly demonstrates that they were originally the same. Nor 
can there be any better evidence that the Jewish Scriptures have not 
been corrupted or interpolated than this very book of the Samaritans, 
which, after more than two thousand years of discord between the two 
nations, varies as little from the Jewish Pentateuch as any classic author 
has varied from itself in less time by the unavoidable mistakes of tran- 
scribers. 

After the Jews returned from Babylon, the Law and the Prophets 
were publicly read in their synagogues every Sabbath day, whieh was 
an excellent method of securing their purity; and a law was also 
enacted by them which denounced him to be guilty of inexpiable sin 
who should presume to make the slightest possible alteration in their 
sacred books. 

Since the birth of Christ the Old Testament has been held in high 
esteem both by Jews and Christians. They have been a mutual guard 
upon each other, which must have rendered any material corruption 
impossible if it had been attempted. For if such attempt had been 
made by the Jews, it would have been detected by the Christians ; and 
if any such attempt had been made by the Christians, it would cer- 
tainly have been detected by the Jews. ISTor could such a purpose have 
been effected by any other body of men without its being exposed by 
both Jews and Christians. 

But as the Jews were dispersed among all the nations of the then 
known world, and as it was therefore impossible that they should col- 
lect all the copies of the Law, with the intention of corrupting them, 
the accomplishment of such a design was on their part utterly imprac- 
ticable. But we will notice, 

(2.) The Agreement of Ancient Manuscripts. — The agreement of all 
the manuscripts of the Old Testament which are known to be extant, 
amounting to more than eleven hundred, is a clear proof of its uncor- 
rupted preservation. These manuscripts are not all entire, some con- 
taining one part and some another. But it is absolutely impossible that 
every manuscript, whether in the original Hebrew or in -any ancient 
version, should or could be designedly altered or falsified in the same 
passages without detection either from Jews or Christians. 

These manuscripts are, confessedly, liable to errors and mistakes 
from the negligence and inaccuracy of copyists ; but they are not all 
uniformly incorrect in the same words or passages, for what is incor- 
rect in one is correct in another. And although the various readings 
which learned men have discovered in the Hebrew Scriptures amount 
to many thousands, yet these differences are of very little real 
moment. 



Chap. 3.] INTEGRITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 61 

Equally satisfactory is the evidence for the integrity of the Scrip- 
tures, 

2. With regard to the Books of the New Testament. — This is manifest, 
(1.) From their Contents. — For, as early as the first two centuries of 

the Christian era, we find the very same facts and the very same doc- 
trines universally received by Christians which we of the present day 
believe on the authority of the New Testament. 

(2.) From the impossibility of their being universally corrupted. — 
They could not be corrupted during the life of their authors; and 
before their death copies were dispersed among the different communi- 
ties of Christians, who were scattered throughout the world. 

Within twenty years after the ascension, Churches were planted in all 
the principal cities of the Roman Empire ; and in all these Churches the 
books of the New Testament, especially the four Gospels, were read as 
a part of their public worship, just as the writings of Moses were read 
in the Jewish synagogues. 

Copies of these books were multiplied and disseminated as rapidly as 
the boundaries of the Church increased, and translations were made 
into as many languages as were spoken by its members. This rendered 
it impossible to corrupt these books in any one important word or 
phrase ; for it is morally impossible that all Christians should agree in 
such a design. 

But as these books could not be corrupted during the life of their 
respective authors, so neither could any material alteration take place 
after their death while the original manuscripts were preserved in the 
Churches. 

The Christians who were instructed by the apostles, or by their 
immediate successors, traveled into all parts of the world, carrying 
with them copies of the apostolic writings, from which other copies 
were multiplied and preserved. We have therefore an unbroken series 
of testimonies for the uncorrupted preservation of the New Testament, 
which can be traced back from the fourth century of the Christian era 
to the very time of the apostles. 

It is known that a division commenced in the fourth century, between 
the Eastern and the Western Church, which exists to the present day. 
Now, if it had been possible to alter all the copies in one of these 
divisions, those of the other would have detected the alteration. But 
the fact is, that both the eastern and the western copies agree ; and 
this proves that on neither side were they altered or falsified. 

The Church was early rent with fierce contentions on doctrinal points ; 
but in all such disputes the New Testament was appealed to by every 
sect, as being conclusive in all matters of controversy. It was there- 
fore morally impossible that any man or body of men could corrupt this 
book in any fundamental article. 

3. From the Agreement of Manuscripts. — Of these upward of three 



62 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE KEVELATION. [Book I. 

hundred and fifty were collected by Griesbach for his celebrated critical 
edition. True, they were not all entire. Most of them contained only 
the four Gospels ; others the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the 
Epistles ; and a few contained the Apocalypse. They were all written 
in different and distant parts of the world, and some of them are 
upward of twelve hundred years old ; but in all essential points they 
perfectly agree, as any one may ascertain by examining the critical 
editions published by Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, and Griesbach. 

The thirty thousand various readings by Dr. Mill, and the one hun- 
dred and fifty thousand of Griesbach's edition, in no degree whatever 
affect the general credit or integrity of the sacred text. They consist 
almost wholly of palpable errors in transcription, grammatical and 
verbal differences, such as the insertion or omission of an article, the 
substitution of a word for its equivalent, or the transposition of a word 
or two in a sentence. 

Even the few various readings that do change the sense, affect it 
almost exclusively in passages relating to unimportant, historical, and 
geographical circumstances, or other collateral matters; and the still 
smaller number that make any alteration in things of consequence do 
not place us in any absolute uncertainty. For, either the true reading 
may be found by a reference to different manuscripts and versions, or, 
should these fail, we may explain the point in question by other undis- 
puted passages of Scripture. 

4. From the Agreement of the Ancient Versions of the New Testament 
with Quotations made from it by Christian Writers of the first three cen- 
turies, and by the succeeding Fathers of the GTiurch. — These quotations 
are so numerous that almost the whole body of the Gospels and Epistles 
might be compiled from the various passages which appear in the writ- 
ings of those authors. And though the citations were, in many cases, 
made from memory, yet they correspond with the original records from 
which they were extracted. Thus we have an irrefragable argument 
for the purity and integrity of the New Testament Scriptures. 

Note.— The word canon, in its general sense, means anything which 
is determined according to a fixed measure, rule, or law. It was 
employed by the early ecclesiastical writers to designate a catalogue of 
things that belonged to the Church. Hence they applied the term to 
a collection of hymns which were to be sung on festival occasions ; to 
a list, in which were introduced the names of Church members ; and 
particularly to a publicly approved catalogue of all the books that 
might be read in Christian assemblies for instruction and edification. 
But by modern theologians the word canon is usually employed to des- 
ignate our authorized collection of Inspired Writings. 

The establishment of the Jewish canon is by some ascribed to Ezra, 
and by others to Nehemiah ; but it can hardly be doubted that in a 



Chap. 3.] INTEGRITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 63 

work so important the priests, the lawyers, and all the leading men of 
the nation must have been unitedly engaged, as the grammarians of 
Alexandria were in determining the canon of the Greek classics. It is 
probable, however, that in this undertaking both Ezra and Nehemiah 
had a principal share. 

The canon of the Old Testament Scriptures appears to have origi- 
nated somewhat in the following manner. When the Jews returned 
from Babylon and re-established Divine worship, they collected the 
inspired books which they still possessed, and commenced with them a 
sacred library, as they had done before with the books of the Law. To 
this collection they afterward added the writings of Zechariah, Malachi, 
and other distinguished prophets and priests, who wrote during the 
Captivity, or shortly after ; and also the books of Kings, Chronicles, 
and other historical writings, which had been compiled from the ancient 
records of the nation. The collection thus made was ever after con- 
sidered complete, and the books composing it were called the Holy 
Scriptures ; or, the Law and the Prophets. 

It is evident from the historical information which we possess, that 
the canon of the New Testament was not finished at once, but was 
commenced a considerable time before it was made complete. The 
Gospels were collected as early as the second century, and in the third 
century were regarded as of undoubted authority throughout the Chris- 
tian Church. They were prefixed to the other books of the New Tes- 
tament, because the history of Jesus was considered, at that early 
period, as the basis of Christian truth ; just as the historical writings 
of Moses were prefixed to the Old Testament as the basis of the Mosaic 
economy. 

As to the Epistles, a collection of them was commenced at a very 
early period, and was gradually enlarged and completed. It appears, 
indeed, to be of somewhat later origin than the collection of the Gos- 
pels ; but both of them must have existed before the beginning of the 
third century. As early as the third century most of the copies of the 
apostolic Epistles contained all the books which now belong to this col- 
lection, as appears from the catalogues of Origen and Eusebius. 



64 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE REVELATION. [Book I. 



CHAPTER IV. 

AUTHENTICITY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 

We have produced, in a former chapter, a variety of proofs in sup- 
port of the genuineness of the sacred books. Should any one still deny 
that they were written by the persons to whom they are ascribed, we 
have a right to ask, By whom then were they composed ? We do not, 
however, expect an answer to this question ; for, as they never were 
attributed to any other authors by those who had the best opportuni- 
ties of knowing their history, it would be ridiculous, at this late day, to 
attempt to trace them to a different origin. It remains, then, for us to 
inquire whether they are a faithful record of the facts and transactions 
of which they give us information. 
The authenticity of the Scriptures may be proved, 
I. From their Internal Marks of Credibility. 
Mr. Leslie has laid down four rules for determining the truth of his- 
torical facts in general. These rules are, 1. That the fact be such as 
that men can judge of it by their outward senses ; 2. That it be public ; 
3. That it be kept in memory both by public monuments and by the 
performance of some outward actions ; 4. That such monuments exist, 
and such actions be observed, from the time that the matter of fact 
came to pass. 

With these rules in view, let us direct our attention, 
1. To the Books of Moses. — In these we have a history of the Jewish 
people from the call of Abraham to the death of Moses, embracing a 
period of nearly five hundred years, and detailing a succession of the 
most wonderful events that ever took place in the history of nations. 
But, in addition to their historical character, they were the standing and 
municipal law of the Jewish nation, binding both the king and the 
people. They required the king to prepare himself a copy, and to 
" read therein all the days of his life ;" and the people were commanded 
to lay up the words of this law in their hearts, and faithfully and dili- 
gently to teach them to their children.* 

These books teach us moreover that God appointed and consecrated 
the tribe of Levi as his priests, by whom alone the sacrifices of the peo- 
ple were to be offered and their solemn institutions celebrated ; that 
their high priest wore a glorious miter, and magnificent robes of God's 
own contriving ;f and that at his word the king and the people were to 
go out and to come in. They teach us that the Levites were the chief 
judges in all matters, and that it was death to resist their sentence. 
* Deut. xi, 18, 19; xviii, 18. \ Num. xxvii, 21. 



Chap. 4.] AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 65 

But the books of Moses, while they contain the history of the Jews, 
together with the laws by which their civil and religious affairs were 
regulated, give us an account of the institution of various commemora- 
tive rites, and of the commemoration of particular actions and events. 
For examples we may take the Passover, in memory of God's passing 
over the children of the Israelites when he slew all the first-born of 
Egypt ;* the Pod of Aaron, which was kept in the ark, in memory of 
the destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and of the confirmation 
of the priesthood in the tribe of Levi ;f the Pot of Manna, in memory 
of their having been fed on manna in the wilderness ; \ the Brazen Ser- 
pent, which was kept to the days of Hezekiah, as a memorial of their 
wonderful deliverance from the biting of the fiery flying serpents ;§ and 
the Feast of Pentecost, in memory of the dreadful appearance of God 
upon Mount Horeb.| 

There were other solemn institutions among the Jews in memory of 
their deliverance out of Egypt ; as the Sabbath, their daily sacrifices 
and yearly expiation, and their new moons, and other feasts and fasts. 
Of these things, therefore, 'there were yearly, monthly, weekly, and 
daily recognitions. 

Now, if the books of Moses had not been a faithful .record of all these 
facts, they never could have been received by the Jews as authentic, 
unless they could have been made to believe that they had received 
them from their fathers, had been instructed in them when they were 
children, and had taught them to their children ; that they had all been 
circumcised, and had circumcised their children, in pursuance of what 
was commanded in these books; that they had observed the yearly 
passover, the weekly Sabbath, the new moons, and all the several feasts, 
fasts, and religious ceremonies commanded in these books; and that 
they had a magnificent tabernacle, with a visible priesthood to admin- 
ister in it, which was confined to the tribe of Levi, over whom was 
placed a glorious high priest, clothed with great and mighty preroga- 
tives. Was it possible to have persuaded a whole nation of men that 
they had known and practiced all these things if they had not done it ? 
or to have received a book for truth, which said that they had prac- 
ticed them when they knew they had not ? 

But now let us suppose that these things were practiced before the 
books of Moses were written, and that the only imposition was in mak- 
ing the people believe that they had kept these observances in memory 
of certain events recorded in those books ; will not the same impossi- 
bility appear upon this supposition, as in the former case? It must 
then be supposed that the Jews kept all these observances in memory 
of nothing, or without knowing anything of their origin or why they 
kept them; whereas these very observances express the reason of their 

* Num. viii, 11, 18. f Num. xvi; xvii. % Deut. xvi, 32, 33. 

§ Num. xxi, 8, 9; 2 Kings xviii, 4. \ Exod. xix; xx. 

5 



®6 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE EEVELATION. [Book L 

being kept ; as the Passover, in memory of God's passing over the chil- 
dren of the Jews when he slew all the first-born of Egypt. 

But if the Israelites knew no reason at all why they kept these 
observances, was it possible to make them believe that they had kept 
them in memory of events of which they had never heard before the 
time when it is supposed these books were written ? Take, for illus- 
tration, the Stonehenge in Salisbury Plain. Every body knows it ; and 
yet no one knows by whom, or for what reason, these great stones were 
placed there. Now, suppose we should write a book, and tell the 
world that these stones were set up by Hercules, in memory of his 
catching the stag with golden horns. And suppose we should say in 
this book that it was written by Hercules himself, or by eye-witnesses, 
at the time of that event ; that it had been received as truth, and 
quoted by the most reputable authors in all ages since ; that it was 
-enjoined by legislative authority to be taught to our children, and that 
when we were children it was taught to us. We would ask the deist 
whether he thinks it possible that such a cheat could be palmed upon 
an enlightened community ? or whether, if we should insist upon it, we 
should not, instead of being believed, be regarded as insane? 

Let us now compare this with the twelve stones set up at Gilgal, 
the history of which is given in the fourth chapter of Joshua. There 
we learn that these stones were designed for a memorial unto the chil- 
dren of Israel of their miraculous passage over Jordan. The miracle 
in memory of which they were set up was such as could not possibly 
be imposed upon that nation when it is said to have been done. It was 
as wonderful as their passage through the Red Sea. Notice was given 
to the Israelites the day before this great miracle was performed.* It 
was done at noonday, before the whole nation. When the waters of 
Jordan were divided it was not at low ebb, but when that river over- 
flowed all its banks.f And it was done not gradually, as by the action 
of winds, but suddenly, as soon as "the feet of the priests that bare 
the ark were dipped in the brim of the water."}; 

Now, to form our argument, let us suppose that there never was any 
such thing as that passage over Jordan — that these stones at Gilgal 
were set up on some other occasion — and then, that some designing 
man invented this book of Joshua, saying that it was written by Joshua 
at that time, and giving these stones for a testimony of its truth. 
Would not everybody say to him, I know these stones at Gilgal, but I 
never before heard of this reason for them, nor of this book of Joshua ? 
Where has it been all this time? Besides, this book tells us that our 
children were to be instructed, from age to age, in regard to this pas- 
sage over Jordan and this memorial at Gilgal. But we never heard of 
that event when we were children, nor did we ever teach our children 
;any such thing ; and it could hardly have been forgotten while so 

* Josh, iii, 5. f Jostl - ii5 > 15 t Josl1 - iv > from verse 18, 



Chap. 4.] AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCKIPTURES. 67 

remarkable a memorial continued. If, therefore, we could not be im- 
posed upon as to the Stonehenge in Salisbury Plain, much less could 
we be in regard to the twelve stones at Gilgal. 

If the books of the Law were written by Moses, as has been shown, 
it is easy to prove that he could not have deceived the people by a 
mere pretense of miraculous attestations. The very instances of mira- 
cles which he gives renders this impossible. Suppose a man should 
pretend that yesterday he divided the Thames, in sight of all the people 
of London, and carried the whole city, men, women, and children, over 
to South wark on dry land, the waters standing like walls on both sides ; 
is it not morally impossible that he could persuade the people of Lon- 
don to believe this to be true, when every man, woman, and child 
would know it to be a notorious falsehood ? Equally impossible was 
it for Moses to persuade six hundred thousand men that he had 
brought them out of Egypt through the Red Sea, or that he had fed 
them forty years with manna if it had not been true, because the 
senses of every man that was then alive must have contradicted it. 
And, for the same reason, it was impossible for him to make them receive 
his five books as truth, which declared that these things had been done 
before their eyes, if they had not been so done. 

But Mr. Leslie's four rules for determining the truth of historical 
facts will apply with equal force, 

2. To the Gospel History. — The works and miracles of our Lord 
were done publicly in the face of the world. He said to his accusers, 
"I spake openly to the world, and in secret have I said nothing." 
John xviii, 20. But his works were as public as was his teaching. 
Some of his most notable miracles were performed in the presence 
of many witnesses. Take, for instance, his first miracle in Cana 
of Galilee,* the healing of the paralytic, f the raising of the wid- 
ow's son from the dead at the city of Nain,J and the feeding of five 
thousand men, besides women and children.§ Equally public were the 
miracles wrought by the apostles ; and as it is impossible that men 
could have been deceived in regard to what was done thus publicly 
before their eyes, these facts accord with the first two rules before 
mentioned. 

Then, for the other two, we have Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
These were instituted by the Author of the Christian religion, to be 
observed in his Church to the end of time : the former, as a sign and 
seal of God's gracious covenant with his people ; and the latter, as a 
memorial of the sacrificial death of Christ. Accordingly, they have 
been observed, without interruption, down to this time. 

Moreover, Christ ordained men to preach his Gospel, administer the 
sacraments, and govern his Church ; and these ministers of religion 
have continued, in regular succession, until the present day. The exist- 

* John ii, 1-10. f Matt, ix, 2-8. % Luke vii, 11-15. § Matt xiv, 15-21. 



68 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE EEVELATION. [Book I. 

ence of the Christian clergy is therefore as notorious a matter of fact as 
was that of the tribe of Levi among the Jews ; and that such an order 
of men was appointed by Christ the Gospel positively declares.* 

But if the Gospel is a fiction, and was invented in some age after 
Christ, then, at the time when it was invented, there could have been 
no public sacraments of Christ's institution, and no order of clergy to 
administer them. For it is impossible that these things could have 
existed before they were invented ; and it is equally impossible that they 
could have been received, when invented, as matters of fact that had 
existed long before. 

And now, to apply what has been said, we may safely affirm that the 
Sacred Scriptures never could have been received had not their histori- 
cal records been true. The institution of the Priesthood of Levi, of 
the Sabbath, of the Passover, and of circumcision ; as also that of the 
Gospel ministry, of Baptism, and of the Lord's Supper, are there related 
as having been handed down, without interruption, from the time in 
which they were severally appointed. But it was impossible to per- 
suade men that they had been circumcised or baptized, that they had 
circumcised or baptized their children, that they had celebrated pass- 
overs, Sabbaths, and sacraments, under the administration of a certain 
order of priests, if they had done none of these things. And without 
believing such facts, it would have been impossible for men to receive 
either the Law or the Gospel. 

These public institutions, then, are an appeal to the senses of man- 
kind for the truth of the matters of fact recorded in the Jewish and the 
Christian Scriptures. For, as it is impossible that the senses of men 
could have been imposed upon at the time when such public matters 
of fact took place ; so it is equally impossible that any one should 
have invented such stories in after ages without being detected at the 
time. 

The authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures may be farther argued, 

II. From the Credibility of the Sacred Writers. 

There are four facts which cannot fail to give credibility to any wit- 
uess : 1. That he is virtuous and sober ; 2. That he has had an oppor- 
tunity to know the truth of what he relates ; 3. That he has no interest 
in making good his story ; and, 4. That his account is circumstantial. 
These guarantees of faithful testimony meet, in the highest degree, in 
the authors of the New Testament, and to them our remarks shall be 
principally confined. 

1. They were Men of strict and exemplary Virtue. — Indeed, this has 
not been denied even by the most malicious enemies of Christianity. 
Of their sincerity they gave the utmost proof in the openness of their 
testimony, never affecting reserve or shunning inquiry. They were so 
fully convinced of the truth of the Gospel, that they were willing for 
* Matt, x, 1-1 ; xviii, 18-20 ; xxviii, 19, 20. 



Chap. 4.] AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 69 

its sake to endure all manner of shame, reproach, and persecution. 
They constantly exhibited, in the bright and faithful mirror of their 
own behavior, the amiableness and excellence of the religion which 
they taught ; and, in every scene and circumstance of life, were distin- 
guished for their devotion to God, their love for mankind, their sacred 
regard for truth, their self-government and moderation, and for every 
social and moral virtue that can adorn and exalt the character of man. 
They were never dejected or intimidated by their severest sufferings ; 
but when persecuted in one city they fled to another, and there pro- 
claimed their message with intrepid boldness and heaven-inspired zeal. 
They were patient in tribulation, joyful under reproach and persecution, 
and, when in dungeons, they cheered the silent hours of the night with 
hymns of praise to God. They met death itself in some of its most 
dreadful forms, but with a serenity and exultation that Stoic philosophy 
never knew. 

2. They were in Circumstances certainly to know the Truth of what 
they relate. — They were the select companions and familiar friends of 
the hero of their story. They had free access to him at all times, heard 
both his public and private discourses, and were spectators of his amaz- 
ing works. Some of them were his inseparable attendants, from the 
commencement to the close of his public ministry. No writers ever 
enjoyed a more favorable opportunity for publishing just accounts of 
persons and things than did the Evangelists for giving a true history of 
Jesus Christ. 

Most of the Greek and Roman historians lived long after the per- 
sons whom they immortalize and the events which they record ; but 
the sacred writers commemorate actions which they saw and dis- 
courses which they heard. They describe characters with which they 
were familiar and scenes in which they were deeply interested. 

And as it was contrary to their character to deceive others, so neither 
could they be deceived themselves. They could not be deceived in the 
case of Christ's feeding the five thousand, of his suddenly healing those 
who were leprous, lame, and blind. They could not but know whether 
he who professed to be the risen Saviour, and with whom they con- 
versed forty days, was the same Jesus with whom they had daily and 
familiar intercourse before his crucifixion. They could not be mistaken 
as to Christ's ascension to heaven ; as to their being suddenly endowed 
with the gift of tongues ; and as to their being able to work miracles, 
and to impart the same power to others. 

3. The Apostles were not influenced by Worldly Interests. — Not only 
were they disinterested in their testimony, but their interests were on 
the side of concealment. One of the Evangelists, Matthew, occupied 
a lucrative situation when called by Jesus, and was evidently an opulent 
man. The fishermen of Galilee were at least in circumstances of com- 
fort, and never had any worldly inducement held out to them by their 



70 EVIDENCES OF A DIVINE EEVELATION. [Book I. 

Master. St. Paul, from his education, connections, and talents, had 
encouraging prospects in life. But they voluntarily abandoned every 
• temporal expectation, and embarked in a cause which the world 
regarded as wretched and hopeless to the last degree. 

The earthly rewards which the apostles of our Lord obtained for 
their devotedness to his cause are thus graphically presented by St. 
Paul : " Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and 
are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; we 
are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things 
unto this day." 1 Cor. iv, 11, 13. Finally, they sealed their testimony 
with their own blood; a circumstance of which they had been fore- 
warned by their Master, and in the daily expectation of which they 
lived. From sueh facts the conclusion is irresistible, that these men 
could not be deceivers. t 

4. Their Testimony was in the highest degree circumstantial. — The 
writings of the Evangelists are full of references to persons then living, 
many of whom were persons of consequence, and to places in which 
miracles and other transactions had publicly taken place. If these 
things had not been true they would have been contradicted ; and if 
contradicted on good evidence, the authors must have been over- 
whelmed with confusion. 

This argument is strengthened by the consideration that "these 
things were not done in a corner ;" nor was the age dark and illiterate, 
or prone to admit fables. The Augustan Age was the most learned 
that the world had ever seen. The love of arts, sciences, and literature was 
the universal passion in almost every part of the Roman Empire, where 
Christianity was first taught in its doctrines and proclaimed in its facts. 
In this inquisitive and discerning age it rose, flourished, and established 
itself, with much resistance to its doctrines, but without being once 
questioned as to the truth of its historical facts. And yet how easily 
might they have been disproved had they been false. 

But we may add, finally, that the history of the Evangelists is 
impressed with every feature of credibility. An artless simplicity 
characterizes all their writings. They use no studied arts to adorn 
their story ; but record the most astonishing events in as plain a man- 
ner, and with as much dispassionate coolness, as if they iad been the 
most common transactions. They are distinguished above all other 
writers for their sincerity and integrity. Impostors never proclaim to 
the world the defects of their own character. But the Evangelists 
inform us of the lowliness and poverty of their condition, their dullness 
of apprehension, and of their ambitious views and warm contentions 
among themselves. They even tell us that they basely deserted their 
Master when he was seized by his enemies ; and that, after his cruci- 
fixion, they returned to their former secular employments, abandoning 
the cause in which they had been so long engaged, notwithstanding 



Chap. 5.] INSPIRATION. 71 

the conviction which they had before entertained that Jesus was the 
Messiah. 

Such men could neither suffer themselves to be deceived, nor be 
capable of imposing a falsehood upon others. We have therefore as 
much reason to believe that they have given us a true history of the 
life and transactions of Jesus, as that Xenophon and Plato have given 
a faithful narrative of the character and doctrines of Socrates. Their 
sacred regard for truth appears in everything which they have written ; 
and to reject such a history is to hi suit the common understanding of 
mankind, and to renounce all faith in history. As well might we reject 
everything that is related in Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus, 
Livy, and Tacitus, and confound all history with fable, truth with false- 
hood, and veracity with imposture. 

We have now considered the Genuineness, the Integrity, and the 
Authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures, and it only remains for us to 
show that these Scriptures are of Divine Authority. This question, 
therefore, will now be examined. 



CHAPTER V. 

DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES t INSPIRATION. 

When we say that the Sacred Scriptures are of Divine authority, 
our meaning is that they are an inspired Revelation from God to man. 
But before we attempt to adduce the evidences by which this proposi- 
tion is infallibly established, we will inquire into the nature and extent 
of that Divine inspiration which is claimed for the sacred writers, and 
to this subject the present chapter will be devoted. 

It has been shown that the sacred writers were men of the utmost 
integrity, and entitled to the most implicit confidence of mankind. But 
since it is possible that honest men may be mistaken, if we had nothing 
more to urge in behalf of these writers than the excellence of their 
character their writings would only be of human authority. Some- 
thing more was therefore required than a pious life, and a mind purified 
from prejudice and passion, to qualify them for being infallible teachers 
of the will of God, namely, Divine inspiration. 

This may be defined to be that extraordinary influence of the Holy 
Spirit upon the human mind by which men are qualified to communi- 
cate to others religious knowledge without error or mistake. 

In the discussion of this subject it will be necessary, 1. To offer a few 
preliminary observations ; 2. To show that the sacred writers claimed 
to be divinely inspired ; and, 3. To ascertain, as nearly as we can, in 



72 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

what sense and to what extent they were supernaturally assisted in 
writing the Holy Scriptures. 

I. We will offer a few Preliminary Observations. — It will be 
proper to observe, 

1. That Inspiration is possible. — The Father of spirits may act upon 
the mind of his creatures, and this action may be extended to any 
degree which the purposes of God may require. He may superintend 
those who write, so as to prevent the possibility of error in their writ- 
ings, which is the lowest degree of inspiration. He may enlarge their 
understanding, and elevate their conceptions beyond the measure of 
ordinary men, and this is the second degree. Or, he may suggest to 
them the thoughts which they should express, and the very words 
which they shall employ, so as to make them merely the vehicles of con- 
veying his will to others. This is the highest degree of inspiration, 
and no sound Theist will deny that all these degrees are possible. 

2. It is reasonable, that the sentiments and doctrines developed in 
the Holy Scriptures should be suggested to the mind of the writers by 
the Supreme Being himself. They are every way worthy of his charac- 
ter, and promotive of the highest interests of man ; and the more im- 
portant the communication is, the more it is calculated to preserve men 
from error, to stimulate them to holiness, and to guide them to happi- 
ness, the more reasonable it is to expect that God should make the 
communication free from every admixture of error. Indeed, the notion 
of inspiration enters essentially into our ideas of a revelation from God, 
so that to deny it is the same as to affirm that there is no revelation. 

3. Inspiration is necessary. — This is evident from the nature of the 
subjects which the Scriptures unfold. Some past facts are recorded in 
the Bible which could not possibly have been known if God had not 
revealed them in a supernatural way. How, for instance, could Moses 
have given a correct history of the creation of the world, and of antedi- 
luvian times, if he had not been divinely inspired? The Scriptures con- 
tain predictions of future events which God alone could foreknow and 
foretell ; and many of the doctrines which they unfold are so far above 
the capacity of the human mind to discover, that they must have been 
delivered by Divine inspiration. 

The authoritative language of the Scriptures, too, if we, admit the 
veracity of the writers, argues the necessity of inspiration. They pro- 
pose things, not as matters for consideration, but for adoption. They 
do not grant us the alternative of receiving or rejecting their instruc- 
tions. They do not present to us their own thoughts, but preface their 
communications by "Thus saith the Lord" and on this ground cLe- 
mand our assent. It follows, therefore, either that the sacred writers 
spoke and wrote " as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," or that 
tkey were impostors. But as the latter is too absurd to be admitted, 
we must adopt the former. 



Chap. 5.] INSPIRATION. 73 

If the Scriptures were not divinely inspired they could not claim our 
entire confidence as an infallible standard of religious truth. For, how- 
ever fully we might be convinced of the honesty of the sacred writers, 
and of the general truthfulness of our religion, when we should proceed 
to examine its nature, and to investigate its doctrines, its precepts, its 
promises, and its institutions, we could not have perfect confidence in 
the detailed account, unless we had reason to believe that its authors 
had been so assisted by supernatural influence as to be infallibly pre- 
served from all error. 

4. Divine Inspiration has always been ascribed to the sacred penmen, 
both by the Jewish and the Christian Church. By the Jews the Law 
of Moses was accounted the Law of God himself, and their other ca- 
nonical books were held in like veneration. Accordingly Josephus tells 
us that they were accustomed, from their infancy, to call these Scrip- 
tures the doctrines of God ; and that they were ready, at any time, to 
lay down their life in vindication of them. 

The primitive Christians entertained the same respect for the writ- 
ings of Moses and the Prophets that the Jews did ; but they received 
also, by universal consent, the Scriptures of the New Testament as 
being composed by the direction and Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 
They regarded, therefore, both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as 
Oracles, to decide all differences in matters of religion ; and every sen- 
tence in them was looked upon as a Divine axiom, from which there 
was no appeal. And thus the case was viewed for nearly seventeen 
centuries, for it is only in modern days that the plenary inspiration of 
the Scriptures has been called in question. 

The opinion of the Church in the first centuries, respecting the in- 
spiration of the sacred writers, is explicitly set forth in the testimony 
of the Christian Fathers. 

Clemens, Bishop of Rome, a cotemporary with the apostles, tells us 
that "the apostles preached the Gospel, being filled with the Holy 
Ghost ;" that " the Scriptures are the true words of the Spirit ;" that 
" Paul wrote to the Corinthians things true by the aid of the Spirit ;" 
and that " he, being divinely inspired, admonished them by an epistle 
concerning himself, Cephas, and Apollos." 

Justin Martyr says that " the Gospels were written by men full of 
the Holy Ghost," 

Irenaeus declares that " all the apostles received the Gospel by Divine 
revelation ; that the Scriptures were dictated by the Spirit of God ; and 
that, therefore, it is wickedness to contradict them, and sacrilege to 
make any alteration in them." 

Theophilus, citing the authors of the Old and the New Testament, 
says that " both the one and the other spake, being inspired by one and 
the same Spirit." And again he says, "These things the Holy Scrip- 
tures teach us, and all who were moved by the Holy Spirit." 



74 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

Clemens Alexandrinus says that " the whole Scriptures are the law 
of God — that they are all Divine ; and that the evangelists and apostles 
wrote by the same Spirit that inspired the prophets." 

Origen tells us that " the Scriptures proceeded from the Holy Spirit ; 
that there is not one tittle in them but what expresses a Divine wis- 
dom ; that there is nothing in the Law, or the Prophets, or the Gospels, 
or the Epistles which did not proceed from the fullness of the Spirit ; 
that we ought, with all the faithful, to say that the Scriptures are 
divinely inspired ; that the Gospels are admitted as Divine in all the 
Churches of God ; and that the Scriptures are no other than the organs 
of God." 

II. The Saceed Writees themselves claimed to be divinely in- 
spired. This is true, 

1. With regard to the Writers of the Old Testament Scriptures. — The 
Jewish lawgiver often reminded those whom he addressed of the Divine 
authority of his communications by the well known declaration, " the 
Lord spake unto Moses ;" and the language of David is, " the Spirit of 
the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." 2 Sam. xxiii, 2. 
Thus, too, the Jewish prophets delivered their predictions, not only in 
the name of Jehovah, but also as being received directly from him. 
Isaiah introduces many of his prophetic messages by the declaration, 
" Thus saith the Lord ;" and Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others by assert- 
ing, "The Lord said unto me," or, "The word of the Lord came 
unto me." 

But the plenary inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures is most 
distinctly asserted by Christ and his apostles. They recognize the whole 
Jewish Canon in their threefold division of the Law, the Prophets, and 
the Psalms. It is upon the evidence of these Scriptures that our Lord 
proves himself to be the Messiah ; and to them he constantly appeals, 
both in proving his own doctrines and in refuting the errors of the Jews. 
But farther, what Moses wrote in the Pentateuch is expressly declared 
by Christ to have been spoken by God himself. " Have ye not read 
that which was spolten unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abra- 
ham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ?" Matt, xxii, 31, 32. 

What David wrote in the Psalms is declared by St. Peter to have 
been spoken by the Holy Ghost. " This Scripture must needs have 
been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the month of David spake 
before concerning Judas." Acts i, 16. He tells us, moreover, that what 
the prophets delivered was by the Spirit of Christ speaking in them ; 
and that they spoke " as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."* 

St. Paul also bears the most unequivocal testimony to the inspiration 

of the Jewish prophets. " Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the 

prophet unto our fathers." Acts xxviii, 25. And again, enlarging the 

terms which he employs to their utmost latitude, but undoubtedly hav- 

* 1 Peter i, 11; 2 Peter i, 21. 



Chap. 5.] INSPIRATION. 75 

ing a special reference to the Jewish Canon, he declares, " All Scripture 
is given by inspiration of God." 2 Tim. iii, 16. Thus we see that the 
writers of the New Testament Scriptures bear witness to the inspira- 
tion of those of the Old. But, 

2. They claim the same kind of Inspiration for themselves. — The 
proof of this is seen, 

(1.) In the general tone of Confidence and Authority with which they 
delivered their Discourses. — To feel the force of this argument, we must 
take a view of the apostles, first in themselves, and then in their changed 
condition, when the gifts of the Spirit had qualified them for the duties 
of their office. 

Behold these weak, dismayed, and timid fishermen of Galilee, who 
had fled at the apprehension of their Master, and had with difficulty 
been persuaded of his resurrection. The day of Pentecost arrives, and 
they are all together in one place, waiting for the promised Comforter. 
The house is shaken where they are assembled, and the Divine Spirit 
descends and rests upon each of them under the external appearance of 
" cloven tongues like as of fire." They are suddenly endowed with 
new and surprising powers, assume a new character, and speak with 
new tongues. Unlearned as they were, and discouraged and cowardly 
as they had proved themselves to be, they discourse with the greatest 
readiness and propriety, and with a boldness which nothing could 
daunt, in every tongue and dialect of the assembled crowds. New 
courage, discernment, skill in argument, and fortitude in bearing testi- 
mony to the truth, appear in all their discourses. " With great power 
gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and 
great grace was upon them all." Acts iv, 33. But the apostles give us 
additional proof of their claim to Divine inspiration, 

(2.) In classing their own Teachings toith the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament, as being of equal Authority toith them. — Hence St. Paul, in 
speaking of believers as "the household of God," declares that they 
"are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." Eph. 
ii, 20. St. Peter occupies the same ground when he says, "I stir up your 
pure minds by way of remembrance ; that ye may be mindful of the 
words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the 
commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour." 2 Peter 
iii, 1, 2. 

Again, they apply to the writings of the New Testament, as well as 
to those of the Old, the peculiar and solemn title of Scripture. " For 
the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that tread eth out the 
corn; and, the laborer is worthy of his reward." 1 Tim. v, 18. Here 
it is seen that the first part of the authoritative citation is taken from 
the Law of Moses ; the second, from the Gospel of St. Luke * Peter 
speaks of the Epistles of St. Paul as being indited by more than human 
* Deut. xxv, 4; Luke x, 7. 



76 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

wisdom, and evidently claims for them Divine authority. They are 
revelations of Divine truth, " which they that are unlearned and unsta- 
ble wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruc- 
tion." 2 Peter iii, 16. To these considerations it may be added that the 
claim of the apostles to Divine inspiration is evinced, 

(3.) JBy their oton positive and express Declarations. — If the prophets 
began their discourses with the solemn formula, " Thus saith the Lord," 
the apostles begin with the same claim of a Divine command : " Paul, 
an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Saviour." 
1 Tim. i, 1. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, 
let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the com- 
mandments of the Lord." 1 Cor. xiv, 37. 

In the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we have the 
account of an epistle which was addressed by the College of Apostles 
to the brethren of the Gentiles. In this short letter we have this 
remarkable passage : " For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to 
us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." 
Hence it follows that the Apostolical Epistles claim to be inspired by the 
Holy Ghost. 

St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, uses this language : 
" My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's 
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith 
should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." He 
then declares that his doctrine was " the wisdom of God in a mystery ;" 
that it was what " none of the princes of this world knew ;" but that 
God had revealed it to him " hy his Spirit." Here the apostle evidently 
claims Divine inspiration; but to put this beyond all possibility of 
doubt, he expresses himself in terms which cannot be misunderstood : 
" Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom 
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things 
with spiritual," or, as some render it, adapting spiritual expressions to 
spiritual things. 

Again, the apostle's solemn injunction to the Galatians to adhere 
strictly to his doctrines demands our attention. On a particular point 
of prudential discipline, such as the marriage of Christians under certain 
circumstances, he had received no inspired communication, and he men- 
tions the exception. But on all the truths of the Christian revelation 
he had received the most positive command. What then is his lan- 
guage when he approaches the doctrines of Christianity? "I marvel 
that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of 
Christ, unto another Gospel. But though we, or an angel from heaven, 
preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached 
unto you, let him be accursed. I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel 
which was preached of me is not after man ; for I neither received it of 
man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. It 



Chap. 5.] INSPIRATION. 77 

pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among 
the heathen." Gal. i, 6-16. 

Correspondent to these declarations is the language of the apostle, 
when, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, he is speaking of the revelation of 
Gospel privileges to the Gentile world. " If ye have heard of the dis- 
pensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward : how 
that by revelation he made Jcnow?i unto me the mystery, as I wrote 
afore in few words ; whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my 
knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made 
known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto the holy apos- 
tles and prophets by the Spirit" Eph. iii, 2-5. 

We have now seen that Divine inspiration is possible, reasonable, 
and necessary; that the Church, in all ages, has ascribed it to the 
sacred writers ; and that they have claimed it in terms which cannot be 
mistaken. Let us then proceed to inquire, 

III. In what sense and to what extent they were super naturally 
assisted in writing the Holy Scriptures f 

This question has given rise to a diversity of opinions. Some have 
had the boldness to deny inspiration altogether, while others have cir- 
cumscribed it within very narrow limits. " I think," says Dr. Priestley, 
u that the Scriptures were written, without any particular inspiration, 
by men who wrote according to the best of their knowledge, and who, 
from their circumstances, could not be mistaken with respect to the 
greater facts, of which they were proper witnesses." He assumes, how- 
ever, that they were liable, like other men, " to adopt a hasty and ill- 
grounded opinion concerning things which did not fall within the com- 
pass of their own knowledge." But it is a sufficient refutation of this 
theory that it directly contradicts what the sacred writers declare of 
themselves, and is an impeachment of their veracity. 

Some who advocate the doctrine of Divine inspiration limit it to the 
prophetical parts of Scripture ; while others extend it to the doctrinal 
parts also, but not to the historical. There are many who maintain 
that the inspiration of the sacred writers was only occasional ; that they 
were not always under that immediate and plenary influence of the 
Holy Spirit which renders their writings the unerring word of God ; 
and that consequently, as they were sometimes left to themselves, they 
then thought and reasoned like ordinary men. According to this 
notion, an intermixture of human infirmity and error is by no means 
excluded from the Sacred Scriptures. But if it is once granted that 
they are in the least degree alloyed with error, an opening is made for 
every imaginable corruption. And to admit that the sacred writers 
were only occasionally inspired, would involve us in the greatest per- 
plexity ; because, not knowing when they were or were not inspired, 
we could not determine what parts of their writings should be regarded 
as the infallible word of God. To tell us, therefore, that they were in- 



78 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

spired only on certain occasions, while we have no means of ascertain- 
ing what those occasions were, is the same as to say that they were 
not inspired at all. 

Many learned men have held the plenary inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures ; the import of which is that every part of them is inspired. 
This doctrine has been violently opposed, and even treated with ridi- 
cule; but the objections against it have arisen, in some cases at least, 
from misconception. It has been supposed to imply that every part of 
the sacred books was immediately communicated to the mind of the 
writers. Hence it has been argued that as some parts of them relate to 
things which might have been known from other sources, it is absurd 
to suppose a revelation where the bodily senses and natural reason 
were adequate to the purpose. But this is not the true idea of plenary 
inspiration. It extends, indeed, to every part of the Scriptures ; but it 
admits of degrees suited to the nature of the various subjects which the 
writers were employed to record, and did not supersede the use of 
their natural faculties, so far as these could contribute to the general 
design. 

We do not then apply the term inspiration in the same sense to 
every portion of Scripture, because the same degree of Divine assistance 
was not necessary in the composition of every part. When the 
prophets predicted future events, or when the apostles made known the 
mysteries of redemption, it was God alone who spoke, and they were 
employed merely as instruments for the communication of his will. 
When Moses related the miracles of Egypt and the journeyings of the 
Israelites in the wilderness, and when the Evangelists related the his- 
tory of Christ, they only declared what they had previously known ; 
but without the assistance of the Holy Spirit they could not have per- 
formed their work so well. 

The true doctrine of plenary inspiration may be drawn from the 
special premises which our Lord made to his apostles respecting the 
gift of the Holy Spirit. " But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, 
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, 
and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto 
you." John xiv, 26. And again, " When he, the Spirit of truth, is 
come, he will guide you into all truth ; for he shall not speak of him- 
self; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will 
show you things to come." John xvi, 13. 

If we examine these promises we can hardly fail to see that they 
must have related to those supernatural endowments which were neces- 
sary to render the apostles infallible teachers of the doctrines of Chris- 
tianity. The Holy Ghost is here promised, not as a Spirit of Miracles 
but as a Spirit of Truth ; an expression which, if taken in connection 
with other terms of the passages, manifestly includes an unerring direc- 
tion in the communication of religious instruction. The Spirit was also 



Chap. 5.] INSPIRATION. 79 

promised to abide with them "for ever;" and this promise secured 
to them his constant operations, without change or intermission, 
whenever and wherever they were engaged in the execution of their 
office. 

Again, the Holy Ghost is called " another Comforter," from which 
phraseology the apostles must have drawn the conclusion that he 
would fully supply the place of their [Master's personal presence ; and 
with the distinct promises before them that the Comforter would teach 
them all things, bring all things to their remembrance,' guide them 
into all truth, and show them things to come, they could not, from the 
most obvious meaning of these declarations, expect anything less than 
the constant help of the Holy Spirit to secure them from all error in 
the communication of religious instruction. 

But we have a more particular account of the nature and extent of 
that supernatural influence which these promises imply in the language 
of our Saviour on another occasion. " When they bring you unto the 
synagogues, and unto magistrates and powers, take ye no thought how 
or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say ; for the Holy 
Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 
xii, 11, 12. To this it is added by Matthew: "For it is not ye that 
speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Matt, 
x, 20. Such, then, is the nature of Divine inspiration ; it is the Spirit of 
God speaking in or by men, and teaching them what they ought to say. 
But if the apostles were thus divinely assisted in defending themselves 
before their persecutors, we surely have a right to conclude that they 
were at least equally assisted in composing their sacred books, as these 
were to be the rule of faith and practice to the Church in all succeed- 
ing ages. 

The different degrees of Inspiration which theologians have usually 
mentioned are superintendence, elevation, and suggestion. Let us 
briefly inquire into the nature of each. 

1. Superintendence signifies that controlling influence of the Holy 
Spirit by which the sacred writers, in relating what they knew by 
ordinary means, were preserved from error, and directed to what they 
should record. 

There are many things in the Scriptures which the writers must have 
known without any direct communication from God. They did not 
need a revelation to inform them of what passed before their eyes, or 
to point out those inferences and moral maxims which were obvious to 
every attentive observer. Moses could record, without a Divine afflatus, 
the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, and the history of their 
journeyings toward the Promised Land. So Solomon could remark that 
" a soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger ;" 
or, that " better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox 
and hatred therewith." In such cases as these no supernatural influence 



80 DIVINE AUTHOEITY OF THE SCEIPTUKES. [Book I. 

was required to enlighten the mind of the writers. It was necessary, 
however, that they should be infallibly preserved from error. 

But the true notion of superintendence implies also that the sacred 
penmen were moved or excited by the Holy Ghost to record particular 
events, and to set down particular observations. They were not like 
common historians, who introduce facts and reflections into their narra- 
tives according to their own judgment and sense of propriety; but 
they were rather like amanuenses, who commit to writing such things 
only as are selected by their employers. Passages which are thus re- 
corded under the direction and superintendence of the Spirit are, in a 
proper sense, divinely inspired. But if the writers had recorded them 
at the suggestions of their own minds they would be mere human com- 
positions, and, though free from error, would be exactly on a level with 
profane history, so far as it is agreeable to truth. 

2. Elevation denotes that Divine influence by which the mental facul- 
ties of the sacred writers, though acting in a natural way, were raised 
and invigorated to an extraordinary degree ; so that their compositions 
were more truly sublime, noble, and pathetic than what they could have 
produced merely by the force of their natural genius. 

By some this kind of inspiration is restricted to such parts of Scrip- 
ture as are lofty and sublime ; but it is easy to perceive that there must 
have been, in some cases at least, an elevation of the mind above its 
ordinary state, even when the province of the writer was simple narra- 
tive. This may be seen in the case of the Evangelists. It is not to be 
supposed that illiterate men, unskilled in the art of composition, such as 
we may conceive Jewish fishermen and publicans to have been, could, 
if they had not been supernaturally assisted, have expressed themselves 
with that perspicuity and dignity of language by which their writings 
are so eminently characterized. It must be granted, therefore, that a 
Divine influence was exerted upon the mind of the Evangelists by which 
they were enabled to relate the discourses and miracles of our Lord, 
and to record the facts of his history, not only with fidelity, but in that 
manner also which was most appropriate and impressive. 

Further, in many passages of Scripture there is such a grandeur, such 
a sublimity of ideas and expressions, as must inevitably lead us to con- 
clude that the faculties of the writers were elevated far -above their 
ordinary capacity. " Should a person of moderate talents give as ele- 
vated a description of the majesty and attributes of God, or reason as 
profoundly on the mysterious doctrines of religion, as a man of the most 
exalted genius and extensive learning, we could not fail to be convinced 
that he was supernaturally assisted ; and the conviction would be still 
stronger if his composition should transcend the highest efforts of the 
human mind. In either of these cases it would be impossible to account 
for the effect by the operation of any ordinary cause ; and yet senti- 
ments so dignified, and representations of Divine things so grand and 



Chap. 5.] INSPIRATION. 81 

majestic occur in their writings, that the noblest nights of human genius, 
when compared with them, appear cold and insipid."* 

3. Suggestion is the highest degree of inspiration, and includes all 
those direct revelations which were made to the sacred writers, of such 
things as they could not have discovered by ordinary means. 

It is manifest, with respect to many passages of Scripture, that the 
subjects of which they treat must have been matters of direct revelation. 
They could not have been known by natural means, nor was the knowl- 
edge of them attainable by a simple elevation of the mental faculties. 
They were founded on the free determinations of God and his presci- 
ence of human affairs, and with the abilities of an angel we could not 
explore the thoughts and purposes of the Divine mind. Such subjects. 
therefore, could not have been known but by a direct communication 
from the "Father of lights." This degree of inspiration is properly 
ascribed to those who were employed to predict future events, to those 
who were sent with particular messages from God to his people, and to 
those who were empowered to make known the mysteries of the 
Gospel. f 

From the preceding account of inspiration, it is easy to perceive in 
what sense the Scriptures, taken as a whole, may be called the Word 
of God. We give them this denomination because they were written 
by persons who were moved, directed, and assisted by the Holy 
Spirit, and who were, therefore, infallibly preserved from error. Hence 
we are authorized to consider all the doctrines, j>recepts, promises, and 
threatenings which they contain, as true, righteous, and faithful ; and to 
believe also that the events which are said to have happened did so hap- 
pen, and that the words which are said to have been spoken were so 
spoken. 

We are not to conclude, however, that all the sentiments contained in 
the Scriptures are just, and that all the examples are worthy of imita- 
tion. Some, from the want of reflection, fall into a mistake in this mat- 
ter. They quote a sentiment as authoritative because they read it in 
the Scriptures, without waiting to consider by whom it was uttered. 
They draw arguments for the regulation of their own conduct and that 
of others from some recorded action, without inquiring into its moral 
quality. Yet it is certain that the sacred writers recorded not only the 
imperfections and misdoings of those who were confessedly pious, but 
also the words and actions of wicked men and devils. Xo moral action T 
therefore, is proved to be right merely from its being recorded in the 
Scriptures. This only proves that the action did really take place, and 
that it was the will of God that we should know it ; but its conformity 
or disconformity to the standard of truth and rectitude must be determ- 
ined by the judgment pronounced in the Scriptures themselves on par- 

* Dick's Theology, vol. i. Lecture xi. 
f See GaL i, 12 ; Eph. iii, 3, 5 ; 1 Cor. ii, 9, 10. 
6 



82 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

tabular cases, or by applying those principles and general rules which 
are laid down in them to regulate our decisions. 

Whether inspiration extended to the language of the Scriptures, as 
well as to the subjects recorded, is a question which has engaged a con- 
siderable share of attention. In answering this question it may be of 
some importance to distinguish one part of Scripture from another. 
We cannot rationally suppose that in those commands, messages, and 
■communications which were delivered in the name of God the writers 
were left to choose their own language ; but the very words, as well as 
the thoughts, must have been dictated by the Holy Spirit. This was 
evidently the case when they announced new and mysterious doctrines, 
of which they could have had no conception if the words had not been 
suggested to them; and when they delivered predictions which they 
did not understand, the inspiration consisted solely in presenting the 
words to their mind. That the prophets did not always understand 
their own predictions is obvious from the language of Peter, who repre- 
sents them as trying to search out their meaning : " Searching what, or 
what manner of time the Spirit of Christ w T hich was in them did signify 
when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that 
should follow." 1 Peter i, 11. Thus far, therefore, it must be allowed 
that inspiration extended to the words. 

With regard to other parts of Scripture, consisting of histories, moral 
reflections, and devotional pieces, we would not contend for the inspira- 
tion of the language in the same sense. It is reasonable to believe that 
the writers were permitted to exercise their own faculties to a certain 
extent, and to express themselves in their natural manner ; but, at the 
same time, we have no right to suppose that even when they were most 
at liberty, they were in no degree directed by a secret influence in the 
selection of words and phrases. 

It w T as of the utmost importance that the facts and observations which 
God intended for the instruction of mankind in all ages should be prop- 
erly expressed. But if we had nothing to depend upon for the accuracy 
of Scripture language but the skill and attention of the writers them- 
selves, most of whom were illiterate and ignorant of the art of composi- 
tion, we could have no certainty that it is always correct ; and our 
faith would be frequently disturbed by the suspicion, that what is only 
a difficulty might be a mistake. It must be granted, therefore, that the 
sacred writers, even in relating what they knew, what they had seen, 
and what they had learned from the testimony of others, were divinely 
assisted in the words which they employed; and consequently, their 
very language bears the seal of God's approbation. 

To this it is objected, that each of the sacred penmen has written in 
his own peculiar style, and therefore the language of Scripture cannot 
be a matter of inspiration. We admit the statement, but deny the 
inference, because the diversity of style observable in the sacred writers 



Chap. 6.] PROOF FROM MIRACLES. 83 

is by no means inconsistent with the inspiration of their language. It 
is possible, and in the highest degree probable, that God, in commu- 
nicating his will to mankind, accommodated himself to the character 
and genius of those whom he employed as his instruments ; and surely 
no man in his senses will affirm that there was only one style in which 
he could communicate his will. 

11 God employs second causes in all his operations so far as we can 
trace them. In employing these second causes he conforms to the laws 
to which he himself has subjected them. God waters the earth, but 
how ? Here, by gentle and oft-repeated showers ; there, by the silent 
and refreshing dews ; and yonder, by the overflowing river. God de- 
stroys the wicked nation : in this instance, by turning the waters of the 
river and sending an invading army through the channel ; in that, by 
the crow and the battering-ram ; in another, by the bomb-shell and the 
bayonet. God, in condescension to human infirmities, uses human lan- 
guage. Is it any more wonderful that he should avail himself of human 
■peculiarities f that, in conveying truth to the prophet's lips, he should 
take the route of the prophet's imagination, emotions, and mental habits ? 
Truly, there is nothing incredible in this to him who knows that the 
hearts and minds of men are in the hands of God, as well as all the mod- 
ifications of external nature."* 



CHAPTEE VI. 

DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES: PROOF FROM 

MIRACLES. 

It has already been proved that Miracles are possible ; that they are 
appropriate, necessary, and satisfactory evidences of a revelation from 
God ; and that, like other facts, they are capable of being authenticated 
by credible testimony. These points having been established, the main 
questions before us are, whether the facts alleged as miraculous in the 
Old and the iSTew Testament have sufficient claim to that character, and 
whether they were wrought in confirmation of the doctrines and mission 
of the founders of the Jewish and the Christian religion. 

As miracles are manifestly above human power, and as no created 
being can effect them, unless empowered by the Author of nature, when 
they are wrought in proof of some particular doctrine, or in attestation 
of the authority of some particular person, they are authentications of a 
Divine mission by a special and sensible interposition of God himself. 
* Dr. Thomson's Essays. 



84 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book 1. 

Let us, then, in examining the miracles of Scripture, turn our attention, 
1. To those of Moses; and, 2. To those of Christ. 

I. The Miracles of Moses. 

From the numerous miracles wrought by the agency of Moses we 
will select only a few. We notice, 

1. The Plague of Darkness.* — Two circumstances are to be noted 
in this event. It continued three days, and it afflicted none but the 
Egyptians ; for " all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings." 
The phenomenon was not produced by an eclipse of the sun, for no 
eclipse of that luminary can continue so long. Some of the Roman writ- 
ers mention a darkness by day so great that persons were unable to 
know each other; but we have no account of any other darkness so 
long-continued as this, which was so intense that the Egyptians "rose 
not up from their places for three days." 

But if any such circumstance had again occurred, and a natural cause 
could have been assigned for it, yet even then the miraculous character 
of this event would remain unshaken ; for the distinction made between 
the Israelites and the Egyptians, while they inhabited the same district 
of country, must be attributed to a supernatural cause. "Moses 
stretched out his hand," and the darkness prevailed everywhere except 
in the dwellings of his people. The fact being allowed, the miracle of 
necessity follows. We will consider, 

2. The destruction of the First-born of Egypt. \ — This judgment was 
threatened in the presence of Pharaoh, before any of the other plagues 
were brought upon him and his people. The Israelites also were fore- 
warned of it, and were directed to slay a lamb, to sprinkle the blood 
upon their door-posts, and to prepare for their departure that same night. 
The stroke was inflicted only upon the first-born of the Egyptians, 
and not upon any other part of the family — it occurred in the same 
hour ; but the first-born of the Israelites escaped, without a single 
exception. 

The history, therefore, being established, the miracle must be admit- 
ted ; for if a pestilence were to be assumed as the agent of this calam- 
ity, every one knows that an epidemic disease comes not upon the 
threat of a mortal, and makes no such selection as the first-born of every 
family. 

3. The dividing of the Red Sea.J — This miracle has already been 
mentioned, but merits a more particular consideration. The miraculous 
character of this event is strongly marked. An expanse of water from 
nine to twelve miles broad, known to be exceedingly subject to agita- 
tions, is divided, and a wall of water is formed on each side, affording a 
passage on dry land for the Israelites. The instrument is a strong east 
wind, which begins its operation upon the waters at the stretching out 
of the hand of Moses and ceases at the same signal. The phenomenon 

* See Exod. x, 21-23. \ See Exod. xii, 29, 30. % Exod - xi ^, 21-23. 



Chap. 6.] PROOF FROM MIRACLES. 85 

occurs just as the Egyptians are on the point of overtaking the Israelites, 
and ceases when the latter reach the opposite shore in safety ; and when 
the former are in the midst of the passage, and in the only position in 
which the closing of the waters could insure the entire destruction of so 
large a host. 

It has been asked whether there were not some ledges of rocks where 
the water was shallow, so that an army, at particular times, might pass 
over; and whether the Etesian winds might not "blow so violently 
against the sea as to keep it back " on a heap." But if there were any 
force in these questions, such suppositions would not account for the 
destruction of the Egyptians. 

At the place where the passage of the Red Sea was effected its depth, 
according to Bruce, is about fourteen fathoms, and its breadth between 
three and four leagues. But there is no " ledge of rocks ;" and as to 
the Etesian winds, if they could keep the sea as a wall on one side, still 
the difficulty would remain of building the wall on the other. It is also 
worthy of remark, that the monsoon of the Red Sea blows the summer 
half of the year from the north and the winter half from the south, 
neither of which could have produced the miracle in question. For the 
wind which actually did blow, according to the history, was an " east 
wind" and, as Dr. Hales observes, " seems to be introduced, by way of 
anticipation, to exclude the natural agency which might be afterward 
resorted to for solving the miracle." 

4. The Miracle of the Man^a. — The falling of the manna in the wil- 
derness for forty years is another unquestionable miracle. That this 
event was not produced by the ordinary course of nature is rendered 
certain by the fact that the same wilderness has been traveled by indi- 
viduals and by large bodies of men from the earliest ages to the present, 
but no such supply of food was ever found, except on this occasion. Its 
miraculous character is marked by the following circumstances : 1. It 
fell but six days in the week ; 2. It was so abundant as to sustain three 
millions of people; 3. A double quantity fell on every Friday, so as to 
serve the Israelites for the next day, which was their Sabbath ; 4. What 
was gathered on the first five days of the week bred worms and became 
offensive if kept over one day, but that which was gathered on Friday 
kept sweet for two days ; and, 5. It continued to fall while the Israelites 
remained in the wilderness, but ceased as soon as they obtained corn to 
eat in the land of Canaan. Let these very extraordinary particulars be 
considered and they will unequivocally establish the miracle. 

II. The Miracles of Christ. 

When we proceed to the examination of these we find that their 
miraculous character becomes, if possible, still more indubitable. Even 
a slight investigation of the feeding of the multitudes in the desert, the 
healing of the paralytic, the raising from the dead of the daughter of 
Jairus, of the widow's son, and of Lazarus, and many other such 



86 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

instances of miraculous power, will be sufficient to convince any ingen- 
uous mind that all the characters of real and adequately attested mira- 
cles meet in them. But to complete this branch of external evidence it 
is only necessary to adduce that greatest of all miracles, the resurrec- 
tion of our Lord from the dead. 

That it is a miracle, in its highest sense, for a person actually dead to 
raise himself again to life cannot be doubted ; and when wrought, as 
the raising of Christ was, in attestation of a Divine commission, it is 
evidence of the most irrefragable kind. So this miracle has been 
regarded by unbelievers, who have bent all their force against it ; and 
so God himself regarded it, rendering its proofs ample and indubitable 
in proportion to its importance. That we may perceive it in its true 
light, let us attend to the following remarks : 

1. There can be no dispute in regard to the Reality of Chrisfs Death. 
— His execution was public, where all could witness the tragedy. 
When the soldiers who broke the legs of the two malefactors came to 
Jesus they saw that he was already dead. Pilate refused to deliver the 
body for burial until he had learned, from the officer on duty, that he 
was really dead. But if no such circumstantial evidence could be 
adduced, it is not to be supposed that they who had sought his death 
with so much eagerness would be inattentive to the full execution of the 
sentence for which they had clamored. The reality of Christ's death is 
therefore established. 

2. He was not taken away to some unknown or distant place of inter- 
ment. — Joseph, of Arimathea, made no secret of the place where he had 
buried him. It was in his own family tomb, " which was nigh at hand ;" 
and the Pharisees knew where to direct the watch which was appointed 
to guard the sepulcher. 

3. It is agreed on all hands that the Body of Christ was removed 
from the Tomb, and that in a state of death it was never more seen. 
How then is this fact accounted for ? The disciples affirm that in the 
midst of a great earthquake, and while the affrighted keepers became as 
dead men, an angel descended from heaven and rolled back the stone 
from the door of the sepulcher, proclaiming that Jesus Christ had risen 
from the dead ; that they examined the tomb for themselves, and saw 
his grave-clothes, but found not his body; that at different times he 
appeared to them, both separately and when assembled; that he con- 
tinued to make his appearance among them for about forty days, allow- 
ing them to converse with him and to handle his body ; and that he 
finally led them out to Bethany and, in the presence of them all, 
ascended to heaven. 

The manner in which the Jewish Sanhedrim accounted for the absence 
of our Lord's body from the sepulcher is, that " his disciples came by 
night and stole him away," while the Roman soldiers were sleeping. 
As we have no other account, we are warranted in the conclusion that 



Chap. 6.] PROOF FROM MIRACLES. 87 

the Pharisees had nothing but this to oppose to the positive testimony 
of the disciples. But it must be seen that in this attempt they fell far 
below their usual subtilty, for the story which they circulated carries 
with it its own refutation. This, however, may be accounted for from 
the hurry and agitation of the moment, and from the necessity under 
which they were laid to invent something to amuse the populace, who 
were rather inclined to charge them with the death of Jesus. 

This absurd rumor was not only hastily gotten up, but it was almost 
as hastily abandoned ; for it is remarkable that it was never adverted to 
by the Pharisees in any of those legal proceedings which were insti- 
tuted against the first preachers of Christ as the risen Messiah. Peter 
and John were first brought before the great council, then the whole 
body of the apostles twice. On all these occasions they affirmed the 
resurrection of Christ before the very men who had originated the tale 
of the stealing away of his body ; but in none of these instances did the 
chief priests oppose their story to the explicit testimony of the disciples, 
or bring forward even one of the sixty soldiers to disprove what they 
asserted. 

That a Roman guard should be found off their watch, or asleep, a 
fault which the military law of that people punished with death, is most 
incredible. Or that the timid disciples of Christ should dare to steal 
away his body, even if the guard were asleep, is very improbable. The 
soldiers were either awake or asleep : if awake, why did they suffer a 
few unarmed men and women to take away the body ? and if asleep, 
how came they to know that the disciples had done it ? 

There is really, therefore, no testimony whatever against the resur- 
rection of Christ. The very inability of the Jewish rulers to account 
for the absence of his body, which had been entirely in their own 
power, affords strong presumptive evidence in favor of the statement 
of the disciples. The tomb was carefully closed and sealed by officers 
appointed for that purpose, a guard was set, and yet the body was 
removed. The story of the Pharisees does not at all account for the 
fact, being too absurd to be for a moment credited ; and unless the his- 
tory of the Evangelists be admitted, that singular fact remains still to 
be accounted for. 

But, in addition to this presumption, let the circumstances of credi- 
bility in the testimony of the disciples be collected, and the evidence 
will become indubitable. 

(1.) Their oion account sufficiently proves that they icere incredulous 
as to the fact of the Resurrection of Christ when it was first announced, 
and therefore they were not likely to be imposed upon by a mere con- 
ceit. Indeed this, under all the circumstances, was impossible ; for the 
appearances of Christ were too numerous, and continued for too long a 
time, forty days. And it was equally impossible that they should per- 
suade upward of five hundred persons that they had seen and con- 



88 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

versed with Christ, or to agree, not only without reward, but in re- 
nunciation of all interests, and in hazard of all dangers and of death 
itself, to continue to assert a falsehood. 

(2.) The account given by the disciples is highly probable ; for if we 
allow the miracles wrought by Christ during his life, his resurrection 
follows as a natural conclusion. Before that event can be maintained 
to be in the lowest sense improbable, the whole history of his public 
life, in opposition not to the Evangelists merely, but to the testimony of 
Jews and heathens also, must be proved to be a fable. 

(3.) The manner in which their testimony is given is in its favor. 
They give an account of the transaction so variant as to make it clear 
that they wrote independent* of one another ; and yet so agreeing in the 
leading facts, and so easily capable of reconcilement in those minute 
circumstances in w T hich some discrepancy at first sight appears, that 
their evidence in every part carries w T ith it the air of honesty and 
truth. 

(4.) A long period did not elapse before the fact of the Resurrection 
was proclaimed / nor was a distant place chosen in which to make the 
first report of it. These would have been suspicious circumstances. 
But, on the contrary, the disciples testified the fact from the very day 
of the resurrection. One of them, in a public speech at the feast of 
Pentecost, addressed to a mixed multitude, affirmed it ; and the same 
testimony w T as given by the whole college of apostles, before the great 
council, twice. This, too, was done at Jerusalem, the scene of the whole 
transaction, and in the presence of those most interested in detecting 
the falsehood had it indeed been false. Their evidence was given 
before magistrates and tribunals; before philosophers, rabbies, and 
lawyers ; before people expert in examining and cross-examining wit- 
nesses ; and yet they were never convicted of prevarication, nor were 
they ever confronted with others who could contradict them, as to this 
or any other matter of fact. 

(5.) To this testimony of the Apostles was added the seal of Miracles. 
The gift of tongues was in proof of the resurrection anct ascension of 
Jesus Christ ; and the miracles of healing, which were wrought by the 
apostles in their Master's name, were proofs both of his resurrection 
and of their Divine commission.* 

We may close this chapter by observing that the miracles which the 
Scriptures record, while they prove the Divine authority of the sacred 
books, are connected, in a most remarkable manner, with that system 
of human recovery which has been carried on in the world from the 
fall of Adam to the present time. 

The mark set upon Cain served as a memorial of the first apostacy 
from the true religion under a dispensation of grace. The general 

* See West on the Resurrection ; Sherlock's Trial of the "Witnesses ; and Dr. Cook's 
Illustration of the Evidence of Christ's Resurrection. 



Chap. 6.] PROOF FROM MIRACLES. 89 

deluge was an awful instance of Divine vengeance against an ungodly 
world. The confusion of tongues was intended to preserve the wor- 
ship of the true God from the influence of atheism and idolatry. The 
wonders wrought in Egypt, by the hand of Moses, were manifestly 
designed to expose the senseless and abominable idolatries of that 
devoted country; and the subsequent miracles in the desert had an 
evident tendency to wean the Israelites from an attachment to the false 
deities of the surrounding nations. The wonders connected with the 
settlement of the Israelites in Canaan, and with their subsequent his- 
tory, all conspired to the separation of that people from a wicked and 
apostate world, and to the preservation of a chosen seed, through 
whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Every miracle 
wrought under the Jewish theocracy appears to have been intended, 
either to correct the superstitions and impieties of the neighboring 
nations, or to reclaim the Jews whenever they betrayed a dispo- 
sition to relapse into heathenish abominations and to forsake the true 
religion. 

In the miracles of our Lord he not only evinced his Divine power, 
but fulfilled many important predictions relating to himself as the 
Messiah, and thus afforded a twofold evidence of his authority. And 
in those of the apostles there is nothing done for mere ostentation, 
but all have a direct reference to the great purpose of the Gospel, that 
of turning men " from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan 
unto God." 

Whoever will take this view of the peculiar design and use of Scrip- 
ture miracles must perceive in them the unerring counsels of Infinite 
Wisdom, as well as the undoubted exertions of Infinite Power. He 
will be compelled to acknowledge that they exhibit proofs of Divine 
agency, carried on in one continued series, such as no other system can 
claim ; and that such agency is not only beyond the power of created 
beings, but demonstrates the impossibility ofirnposture in any part of 
the proceeding. 

On miracles, therefore, like those which attest the mission of Moses 
and of Christ, we may safely rest the proof of the authority of both, 
and say to each of them, though with a due sense of the superiority of 
the "Sox" to the "servant," "Rabbi, we know that thou art a 
teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles that thou 
doest, except God be with him" John iii, 2. 



90 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 



CHAPTEK VII. 

DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES: PROOF FROM 

PROPHECY. 

The nature and force of the argument from Prophecy have already been 
stated,* and it has been proved that real predictions can be uttered 
only by inspired men, and that the author of such communications can 
be no other than the infinite and omniscient God, showing to his serv- 
ants things to come in order to authenticate their mission, and to fix 
upon their doctrines the stamp of his own infallible authority. 

The only subject of inquiry proper to this chapter is, therefore, the 
prophetic character of the predictions contained in the Old and the New 
Testament. In order to place this subject in as clear a light as possible, 
it will be necessary, 1. To make a few general observations; and, 2. To 
adduce some examples of Scripture prophecy which prove themselves 
to be real predictions. 

I. General Observations in regard to the Prophecies oe the 
Holy Scriptures. 

1 . The instances to he considered by those who would fully satisfy 
themselves on this point are numerous. There are prophecies relative 
to individuals, to cities and states, to the person and offices of Christ, 
and to the Christian Church. Some of these have been unequivocally 
fulfilled ; and there are others which are now taking place, or which are 
to be fulfilled hereafter. 

2. Men may differ in regard to the fulfillment of some particular 
prophecies ; but there are many others the accomplishment of which 
has been so evident as to defy rational doubt. Nor can it be shown 
that any clear prediction of the Holy Scriptures has ever been falsified 
by the event. 

3. The Predictions of Scripture chiefly relate to a grand scheme for 
the moral recovery of the human race from ignorance, vice, and wretch- 
edness. They speak of the agents to be employed in it, and especially 
of the Redeemer himself; and of those mighty and awful proceedings 
of Providence, as to the nations of the earth, by which judgment and 
mercy are exercised with reference both to the ordinary principles of 
moral government, and especially to this restoring economy. 

Prophecy is of very great extent. It commenced at the fall of man, 

and reaches to the consummation of all things. For many ages it was 

delivered darkly to but few persons, and with long intervals from the 

date of one prophecy to that of another ; but at length it became more 

* See chapter i of this book, § 1. 



*Chap. 7.] PROOF FROM PROPHECY. 91 

clear and more frequent. It was uniformly carried on in the line of one 
people, who were separated from the rest of the world that they might 
be the repository of the Divine Oracles ; and, with some intermission, 
the spirit of prophecy subsisted among them to the coming of the Mes- 
siah. But Christ and his apostles exercised this power in the most 
conspicuous manner, leaving behind them many predictions, recorded in 
the New Testament, which profess to respect very distant events, and 
even to run out to the end of time. 

Farther, besides the extent of this prophetic scheme, the dignity of 
the Person whom it mainly concerns deserves our consideration. He 
is described in terms which excite the most august and magnificent 
ideas. He is indeed spoken of as " the seed of the woman" and as " the 
Son of man y" yet so as being at the same time of more than mortal 
extraction. He is represented as the Word and the Wisdom of God ; 
as the eternal Son of the Father ; and the " brightness of his glory, 
and the express image of his person." Such is the transcendent excel- 
lence of that Jesus to whom all the prophets bear witness. 

But we may add, that the declared purpose for which the Messiah 
came into the world corresponds to all the rest of the representation. 
It was not to deliver an oppressed nation from civil tyranny, or to erect a 
great civil empire. It was another and far sublimer purpose — a pur- 
pose, in comparison of which all our policies are poor and little, and all 
the performances of man as nothing. It was to deliver a world from 
ruin ; to abolish sin and death ; to purify and immortalize human na- 
ture ; and thus, in the most exalted sense, to be the Saviour of men and 
a blessing to all nations. Such is the scriptural delineation of that econ- 
omy which we call prophetic. 

4. Prophecy in this peculiar sense, and on this ample scale, is found 
nowh&re but in the Holy Scriptures, and to them therefore the advant- 
age of this species of evidence exclusively belongs. It is a growing 
evidence, gathering strength by length of time, and affording from age 
to age fresh proofs of its Divine origin. Heathenism never made any 
clear and well-founded pretensions to it ; and Mohammedanism, though 
it stands as a proof of the truth of Scripture prophecy, is unsupported 
by a single prediction of its own. 

5. The Objection raised to Scripture Prophecy from its supposed 
obscurity has no solid foundation. There is, it is true, a prophetic lan- 
guage of symbol, or emblem ; but it is a language which is definite in 
its meaning, and as easily understood as that of poetry. This, however, 
is not always used. The style of prophecy often differs in nothing 
from that of the Hebrew poets, or sinks into the plainness of historical 
narrative. 

The two great ends of prophecy are, to excite expectation before the 
event, and to confirm the truth by an unequivocal fulfillment ; and it is 
a sufficient answer to the allegation of the obscurity of prophecy, that 



f 

92 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

It has abundantly accomplished both these objects. It cannot be denied, 
for instance, that by means of predictions an expectation of the advent 
of a Divine Restorer was kept up among the Jews ; that as these pre- 
dictions multiplied their expectation became more intense ; and that at 
the time of our Lord's coming this expectation prevailed, not only 
among the Israelites, but also among other nations. This purpose then 
was sufficiently answered, and the objection is met. It is in this way 
that prophecy serves as a basis for our hope in regard to things yet to 
come, such as the final triumph of truth and righteousness, the univer- 
sal establishment of the kingdom of our Lord, and the ultimate rewards 
of the righteous. 

The second end of prophecy is, to confirm the truth by the subse- 
quent event. Here the question of the actual fulfillment of Scripture 
prophecy is involved, to which we shall immediately advert. 

6. From what theologians call the "double sense" of prophecy an 
objection of another kind has been raised, as though no definite mean- 
ing could be assigned to the prophecies of Scripture but that they 
resembled the ambiguity of the pagan oracles. Nothing, however, can 
be more unfounded. The equivocations of the heathen oracles arose 
from their ignorance of future events, and from their endeavors to con- 
ceal that ignorance by such indefinite expressions as might be equally 
applicable to two or more events of a contrary description. But the 
double sense of Scripture prophecy springs from a foreknowledge of its 
accomplishment in both senses ; whence the prediction is purposely so 
framed as to include both events, the one being typical of the other. 

So far, then, are these seeming ambiguities of meaning from forming 
any valid objection to the credibility of Scripture prophecies, that we 
may urge them as additional proofs that these predictions came from 
God. For, who but the Being who is infinite in knowledge and in 
counsel could so construct predictions as to give them a twofold appli- 
cation to events not only distant from one another, but to human fore- 
sight, unconnected with each other ? 

II. Examples of Prophecy which peove themselves to be real 
Predictions. 

We now proceed to enumerate a few predictions contained in the 
Scriptures which most unequivocally show a perfect knowledge of 
future events, and which, therefore, as certainly prove that they were 
uttered by men who spoke " as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 
Let us notiee, 

1. The Prophecy respecting the Seed of the Woman. — "I will put 
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her 
seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen. 
in, 15. In vain is it attempted to resolve the whole of the transaction 
with which this prediction stands connected into allegory, or to show 
that the language expresses a mere fact of natural history, the enmity 



Chap. 1.] PROOF FROM PROPHECY. 93 

between the human race and serpents. In no intelligible sense can the 
passage be understood but in that fixed upon it by other portions of the 
sacred volume. 

The serpent and the seed of the woman are representatives of two 
invisible and mighty powers, the one good, the other evil ; the one 
Divine, though incarnate, the other diabolic. Between them enmity is 
placed, which is to express itself in a long and fearful struggle, in the 
course of which the seed of the woman shall sustain a temporary wound; 
but the conflict shall issue in the infliction of a fatal blow upon the 
power of the serpent. 

The scene of this contest is our globe, and generally the visible agents 
in it are men under their respective leaders. The serpent is endeavor- 
ing to render dominant error, vice, and rebellion against the Divine 
government ; while the seed of the woman is advocating truth, virtue, 
and obedience to God. 

Now, that such a contest of principles and powers has existed in the 
world no one can deny. It commenced with Cain and Abel, and was 
continued in the wickedness and punishment of the antediluvians, and 
in the prevalence of idolatry and the judgments of God upon idolatrous 
nations ; and we trace it in the history of the Jews down to the com- 
ing of our Lord. We witness the sufferings and death of the incarnate 
Redeemer, the bruising of his heel / but he died only to revive again, 
more visibly and powerfully to establish his kingdom and to commence 
his spiritual conquests. The history of the Christian Church is but the 
history of this mighty struggle between light and darkness. The con- 
test still continues, but with increasing zeal on the part of Christianity, 
and with a success which warrants the hope that the time is not far 
distant when the head of the serpent shall be bruised throughout the 
entire world, and the idols of modern heathenism be displaced to intro- 
duce the worship of the universal Saviour. 

Infidels may scoff at a redeemer, and deride the notion of a tempter ; 
but they cannot deny that such a contest as is here foretold has actually 
taken place and still continues. This contest, so extended, so continued, 
and so to be terminated, no human foresight could have foretold ; and 
the fact is therefore established that no one could have uttered this first 
promise made to fallen man but He whose eye looks through the depths 
of future ages. 

2. The Prediction of Jacob in regard to the coming of "Shiloh." — 
" The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between 
his feet, until Shiloh come." Gen. xlix, 10. 

The word " Shiloh" signifies the Peacemaker, or he who is to be sent. 
In either sense it is applicable to the Messiah. Nor is this application 
an invention of Christians, for it was so understood by the ancient 
Jews, and the modern ones are unable to resist the evidence drawn 
from the passage in favor of the claims of our Lord. That the prophecy 



94 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

has received a singular accomplishment in the person of Christ is cer- 
tain, and it is equally certain that in no other person has it been accom- 
plished in any sense whatever.* Judah, as a tribe, remained till after 
the advent of Christ, which cannot be said of the long-dispersed ten 
tribes, and scarcely of Benjamin, which was merged into the tribe of 
Judah. 

It has been asked, Where was the supremacy of Judah when Nebu- 
chadnezzar carried the whole nation captive to Babylon, when Alex- 
ander subdued Palestine, and when it was a tributary province of the 
Roman empire ? We reply that the prediction does not convey the idea 
of either independent or supreme power, but that the tribe of Judah 
should retain its ensigns, its chiefs, and its tribeship until the coming 
of Shiloh. During the captivity in Babylon this tribe was kept distinct, 
and had its own internal government and chief. Under the dominion 
of the Asmonean kings the Jews had their rulers, their elders, and their 
council ; and so under the Romans. 

It is, therefore, matter of unquestionable historic fact, that until our 
Lord came and had accomplished his work on earth the tribe of Judah 
continued ; and that in a short time afterward it was dispersed, and min- 
gled with the common mass of the Jews of all tribes and countries. We 
see, then, that this prediction implies a prescience of countless contin- 
gencies, occurring in the lapse of successive ages, which can only belong 
to God. 

3. Predictions respecting the Jewish Nation. — These predictions, 
beginning with those of Moses and running through all the Jewish 
prophets, are too numerous to be adduced ; but there are three promi- 
nent topics contained in them which demand consideration. These are, 
the frequent and gross departures of the Jews from the Divine Law, 
their signal punishments, and their final restoration to their own land. 
All these have taken place. Even the last was accomplished by the 
return of the Jews from Babylon, though, in its highest sense, it is still 
future. 

(1.) Their Apostasies. — These were foretold by Moses. "I know," 
said he, " that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and 
turn aside from the way which I have commanded you." Deut. xxxi, 29. 
This prediction proves very clearly that Moses was an inspired prophet. 
The rebellious race whom he had led into the wilderness had died there, 
the new generation were much more disposed to obey their leader, and 
when these words were written appearances were all in favor of the 
future obedience of that people. 

But even if this had not been the case, it would have been the last 
thought with Moses, as a merely political man, that his favorite insti- 
tutions should fall into disuse and contempt. Nor is it to be supposed 
that he would have closed his public life by declaring that he foresaw 
* See Newton on the Prophecies. 



Chap. 7.] PROOF FROM PROPHECY. 95 

such an event if even he had feared it. Nothing, therefore, but the 
spirit of prophecy could have influenced him to make such an announce- 
ment. 

(2.) Their threatened Punishments. — The Jews were threatened with 
signal punishments in famines, pestilences, invasions, dispersions, cap- 
tivities, and subjugations to foreign enemies ; and these are represented 
as being solely the consequences of their vicious departures from God 
and from his laws. 

It may be said that Moses uttered his predictive menaces to deter the 
people from departing from institutions which he was anxious, for the 
sake of his own fame, that they should observe. To this we answer, 
that he could not expect the Israelites to attach any weight to his 
threats, unless their former rebellions had been punished by such visita- 
tions. For forty years his laws had been often disobeyed, and if no 
infliction of Divine displeasure had followed, what reason had they to 
credit the menaces of Moses as to the future ? But if such inflictions 
had resulted from their disobedience, everything in regard to these 
threatenings is rational and consistent. 

The infidel may choose which of these positions he pleases. If he 
thinks that Moses aimed to deter the people from departing from his 
institutions by empty threats, he ascribes an incredible absurdity to~-a 
man of unquestionable wisdom and policy ; but if his predictive threat- 
enings were enforced by former marked and acknowledged interposi- 
tions of Divine Providence, he was God's inspired prophet. "Who but 
an inspired man could foresee that no famine, no blight, no invasion 
would befall the Jews, except in obvious punishment for their offenses ? 
What was there in the common course of things to prevent them, 
though observant of their laws, from falling under the dominion of 
more powerful nations but the special protection of God ? And what 
but this could guard them from the plagues and famines to which their 
neighbors were liable ? 

If we turn to matters of fact as recorded in the sacred history, we 
will find that every instance of singular calamity is consequent on a 
previous departure from the laws of Moses ; the one following the 
other with almost as much regularity and certainty as natural effects 
follow their causes. In this the predictions of Moses and the 
Prophets are strikingly fulfilled, and a more than human foresight is 
proved. 

Let us look farther into the detail of these threatened punishments 
of the Jews. Besides the ordinary inflictions of failing harvests and 
severe diseases in their own country, they were, according to the pre- 
dictions of Moses, (Deut. xxviii,) to be scattered " among all people, from 
the one end of the earth even unto the other." And where is the 
trading nation in Asia, Africa, Europe, or America in which they are 
not ? Who could foresee this but God ; especially when their singular 



96 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

preservation as a distinct people, a solitary instance in the history of 
nations, is implied ? 

This remarkable chapter, written more than three thousand years 
ago, contains other predictions equally striking, and as evidently accom- 
plished. The siege of Jerusalem by the Romans is pointed out with 
that particularity which demonstrates, in the most unequivocal man- 
ner, the prescience of Him to whom all events are known with absolute 
certainty. That the Romans are intended in verse 49, by the nation 
brought from " the end of the earth" distinguished by their well-known 
ensign, " the eagle" and by their fierce and cruel disposition, is exceed- 
ingly probable. And it is remarkable, that the account of Moses in 
regard to the horrors of the siege of which he speaks is exactly par- 
alleled by those well-known passages in Josephus, in which he describes 
the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman army. 

(3.) Their final Restoration. — Moses and other prophets agree, that 
after all the captivities and dispersions of the Jews they shall again be 
restored to their own land. This was in one instance accomplished, as 
we have seen, in their restoration by Cyrus and his successors, after 
which they became a considerable state. Jeremiah had fixed the cap- 
tivity so unequivocally to seventy years, that the Jews in Babylon, 
when the time drew near, began to prepare for their return. But there 
was nothing in the circumstances of the Babylonian empire, when the 
prediction was uttered, to warrant the hope of such a deliverance. No 
one therefore but He who determines the affairs of the world by his 
power and wisdom could foretell that event. 

A future restoration, however, awaits this people, and will be to the 
world a glorious demonstration of the truth of prophecy. This being 
future, we cannot argue upon ; but three things are certain : the Jews 
themselves expect it ; they are preserved by the providence of God as 
a distinct people for their country y and their country, which in fact is 
possessed by no one, is preserved for them. 

4. Prophecies respecting the Messiah — the great end and object of 
the prophetic dispensation. Divines have selected more than one hund- 
red predictions, generally of very clear and explicit meaning, and each 
referring to some different circumstance connected with the appearing, 
the person, or the history of Jesus Christ. How are all these to be dis- 
posed of, if the inspiration of the Scriptures which contain them be 
denied ? 

These predictions are in books written many ages before the birth of 
our Saviour ; and that no interpolations have taken place to accommo- 
date them to him is evident, for the same predictions are found in 
copies which are in the hands of the Jews, and which have descended 
to them from before the Christian era. On the other hand, the history 
of Jesus answers to these predictions, and exhibits their exact accom- 
plishment. 



Chap. 1.] PROOF FROM PROPHECY. 97 

The Messiah was to be of the seed of David ; born in Bethlehem ; 
born of a virgin ; an incarnation of deity, God with ns ; and an eminent 
but unsuccessful teacher. He was to open the eyes of the blind, heal 
the diseased, and raise the dead. He was to be despised and rejected 
of his own countrymen, arraigned on false charges, denied justice, 
and condemned to a violent death. He was to rise from the dead, 
ascend to the right hand of God, and being there invested with power 
and authority, he was to punish his enemies, and to establish his own 
spiritual kingdom, which shall never end. 

We need not enter into more minute predictions, for the argument is 
irresistible when founded on these alone. If we deny that the prophets 
were divinely inspired, how shall we account for the fact that these 
circumstances, strange as they are, have all met in one person, and in 
one only of all the millions of men, and that person Jesus of Nazareth? 
We may assert that no man, or number of men, could have made such 
conjectures. It is therefore impossible to evade the evidence in favor 
of the prophetic character of these predictions, which o their fulfillment 
affords, unless it could be shown that Jesus and his disciples, by some 
kind of concert, made the events of his life and death to correspond 
with the prophecies in order to substantiate his claim to the Messiah- 
ship. 

No infidel has ever been so absurd as to hazard this opinion except 
Lord Bolingbroke. He asserts that Jesus Christ brought on his own: 
death, by a series of willful and preconcerted measures, merely to give 
his disciples the triumph of an appeal to ancient prophecies ! But this 
hypothesis does not reach the case. He ought to have shown that our 
Lord preconcerted his descent from David, his being born of a virgin, 
and in the town of Bethlehem ; and that he contrived not only his 
death, but his resurrection and ascension also, and the spread of his 
religion in opposition to human opinion and human power, in order to 
give his disciples the triumph of an appeal to the Prophecies ! Thus 
men do violence to their own understanding by denying the truth. 

That wonderful series of particular prophecies respecting our Lord, 
contained in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, will illustrate the fore- 
going observations, and may properly close this chapter. 

The style of this portion of Scripture is that of narrative; it is also 
entire in itself, and unmixed with any other subject ; and it evidently 
refers to one single person. So the ancient Jews understood it, and 
applied it to the Messiah ; and though modern Jews, in order to evade 
its force in the argument with Christians, allege that it describes the 
sufferings of their nation, and not of an individual, the objection is 
refuted by the terms of the passage. 

The Jewish people could not be the sufferer, because he was to bear 
their griefs, to carry their sorrows, and to be wounded for their trans- 
gressions ; so that the person of the sufferer is clearly distinguished 

7 



98 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

from the Jewish nation. Moreover, his death and burial are spoken of, 
which in no sense can be applied to the Jews. To some individual it 
must be applied ; to no one but our Lord can it be applied ; and 
applied to him, the prophecy assumes the appearance of real history. 

Let the infidel meditate thoroughly and soberly upon these predic- 
tions. Their priority to the events admits of no question, and their ful- 
fillment is obvious to every competent inquirer. Here, then, are facts, 
and we must account for these facts on rational and adequate principles. 
Is human foresight equal to the task? Is conjecture ? Is chance? Is 
political contrivance ? If none of these can account for the facts, neither 
can any other principle that may be devised by the sagacity of man. 
As, therefore, every efiect must have a cause, true philosophy, as well as 
true religion, will ascribe them to the inspiration of the Almighty. 



CHAPTER VIII. 



DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES I INTERNAL 

EVIDENCE. 

The Internal Evidence of a revelation from God has been stated to 
be that which is drawn from the nature and moral tendency of the doc- 
trines taught.* This is at least its chief characteristic, though other 
particulars may also be included in this species of proof. 

There are some truths, made known to us through the medium of a 
revelation from God, which, though not discoverable by the unassisted 
reason of man, yet, when once revealed, are attended by strong rational 
evidence, so far as we can understand them. Of other truths revealed 
to us in the Bible, and those in many instances fundamental to the 
Christian system, we have no proof of this kind ; but they stand alone 
on the firm basis of Divine attestation as their authenticating evidence. 
Such are the doctrines of the Trinity, of the hypostatic union of the two 
natures in Christ, and of his Divine and eternal Sonship. ? 

The Internal Evidence of the Holy Scriptures, so far as doctrines are 
concerned, is restrained to truths of the former class; but there are 
facts and circumstances connected with all Scripture from which this 
kind of evidence may be drawn. Our remarks, however, will be con- 
fined to the excellence of the doctrines, their moral tendency, the won- 
derful agreement of the sacred writers, and their style and manner. 

I. The Excellence of the Doctrines of Scripture. 

In presenting this feature of the subject we will not attempt to do 

* See chap, i, § 2. 



Chap. 8.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 99 

anything more than to consider a few of the more prominent doctrines 
of the Bible. We will notice, 

1 . The Scripture Doctrine respecting the Nature and Attributes of God. 
— That this doctrine presents itself to the mind of man with strong 
rational evidence is clearly shown by that astonishing change of opinion 
on this great subject which took place in pagan nations on the promul- 
gation of Christianity, and which continues to this day. The discover- 
ies of revelation have satisfied the human mind on this great and pri- 
mary doctrine, and have given it a resting-place which it never before 
found. A class of ideas the most elevated and sublime, and which the 
most profound philosophers in former times sought without success, 
have thus become familiar to the most illiterate in Christian nations. 

2. The Moral Condition of Man. — Of this, as it is represented in the 
Scriptures, the evidence from fact and from our own consciousness is 
very copious. What man is in his relations to God we never could 
have discovered without revelation ; but now, as this is made known, 
confirmatory facts crowd in on every side, affording evidence of the 
truth of the doctrine. The Scriptures represent the human race, 

(1.) As absolutely vicious, and capable, without moral check and 
control, of the greatest enormities. — To this the history of all ages bears 
witness, and present experience gives its testimony. All the states of 
antiquity crumbled down or were suddenly destroyed by their own 
vices ; and the general character and conduct of the people who com- 
posed them may be read in the works of their historians, poets, and 
satirists, which have been transmitted to our times. 

These testimonies fully bear out the dark coloring of man's moral 
condition as it is found in the first chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the 
Romans, and in other passages of the Scriptures ; and to this day the 
same representation depiots the condition of almost all pagan countries. 
Even where the redeeming influence of revealed religion has been most 
powerfully exerted, the same appetites and passions may be seen in per- 
petual contest with the laws of the state, the example of the virtuous, 
and the commands of God. The Scriptures therefore characterize man 
as he has been found to be in all ages and in all places. But they 
assume, 

(2.) That Man is vicious in consequence of a Moral Taint in his 
Nature. — This assumption is the basis of the whole scheme of moral 
restoration through Jesus Christ. Accordingly the Scriptures con- 
stantly remind him that he is " conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity" 
and that being " born of the flesh" he " cannot please God." That man 
is strongly inclined to do evil cannot be denied, for the doctrine appeals 
to our reason through the evidence of unquestionable facts. It is sup- 
ported by every penal law in civil legislation ; by every legal deed, 
with its seals and witnesses ; and by the history of nations, which is 
chiefly a record of human crime. 



100 DIVINE AUTHOEITY OF THE SCKIPTUKES. [Book I. 

This tendency to evil, the Scriptures tell us, arises from "the heart f 
nor is it otherwise to be accounted for. It cannot be the result of asso- 
ciation and example, as some have supposed; for if men were naturally 
inclined to good and averse to evil, how is it that the whole race have 
become evil by association ? This not only involves the absurdity of 
supposing the weaker cause to be more efficient than the stronger, but 
it is also contrary to the reason of the case ; for with persons naturally 
well disposed, example and association can produce no other effect than 
that of maturing and confirming their good dispositions. 

Nor is there any plausibility in the opinion that this general corrup- 
tion is the result of bad education. If man in all ages had been rightly 
affected in his moral inclinations, how could a course of deleterious edu- 
cation have commenced ? and if it could have commenced, why was it 
not arrested and a better system introduced? The Scriptures, there- 
fore, assign the only rational cause for this phenomenon : that man is 
by ^tatuee prone to evil. But as it is unreasonable to suppose that 
this disposition was implanted in him by his Maker, we are bound to 
admit the Scripture doctrine of the fall of the human race from a 
higher and better state. 

The Scriptures also teach, 

(3.) That the Divine Administration in regard to Man is of a mixed 
Character, exhibiting both /Severity and Kindness. — As he is corrupt in 
his nature and tendencies, he is placed under a rigidly restraining disci- 
pline ; and as he is an actual offender, he is under correction and a penal 
dispensation. But, on the other hand, as he is a being for whose pardon 
and recovery Divine Mercy has made provision, moral ends are connect- 
ed with these severities, and the administration of God is crowned with 
instances of benevolence to the sinning race. 

The proof of these different relations of man to God surrounds us in 
that admixture of good and evil, of indulgence and restraint, of felicity 
and misery, to which he is so manifestly subject. Life, in all ordinary 
circumstances, is felt to be a blessing ; but it is short and uncertain, and 
subject to numerous evils. Many enjoyments fall to the lot of men, yet 
with the majority they are attained by means of great and exhausting 
labors ; or they are accompanied with so many disappointments, fears, 
and cares, that their number and quality are greatly lessened. 

The globe itself, the residence of man, bears evident marks of the 
mixed character of the Divine government. It is subject to destructive 
earthquakes, volcanoes, and inundations ; to blights and dearths, the 
harbingers of famine ; and to those atmospheric changes which induce 
wide-wasting epidemic disorders. These and many other instances 
show a course of discipline very incongruous with the most enlightened 
views of the Divine character, if man be considered as an innocent being. 

On the contrary, he cannot be under an unmixed penal administra- 
tion; for the earth yet ordinarily yields her increase to industry; the 



Chap. 8.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 101 

destructive convulsions of nature are but occasional ; and, generally, the 
health of men predominates over sickness, and their animal enjoyments 
exceed their positive misery. 

To those diverse relations of man to God, as stated in the Bible, the 
contrarieties of nature and providence bear an exact adaptation. As- 
sume man to be anything else than what the Scriptures represent him 
to be, and they would be discordant and inexplicable ; but in this view 
they harmonize. Man is neither innocent nor finally condemned — he is 
fallen and guilty, but not excluded from the compassion and benignity 
of his God. 

3. The Doctrine of Atonement. — The great article of Christianity is, 
the restoration of man to the Divine favor, through the merits of the 
vicarious and sacrificial death of Christ, the incarnate Son of God. 
The rational evidence of this doctrine, we grant, is partial and limited ; 
but this does not affect its authority. It is indeed not unreasonable to 
suppose that the internal evidence of such a doctrine should be somewhat 
obscure, for we must not expect as clear information in regard to the 
Divine conduct as concerning our own duty. There is nevertheless a 
reasonableness in this doctrine, when fairly understood, and a wonder- 
ful adaptation to the moral condition of man, which strongly commend 
it to every sober and thoughtful mind. 

The doctrine of the atonement is grounded upon man's liability to be 
eternally punished in a future life for sins committed in this. That 
men are capable of committing sin, and that sin is productive of misery 
and disorder, cannot be denied ; for the great sum of human misery is 
the effect of actual offense. And as it is a principle in human legisla 
tion to estimate the guilt of individual acts by their general tendency, 
and to proportion their punishment by that consideration, the same rea- 
son of the case is in favor of that future and eternal punishment which 
the Scriptures declare to be the penalty of the Divine law. 

That atonement for sin which was made by the death of Christ is 
represented in the Christian system as the means by which mankind 
may be delivered from this awful catastrophe. This end it proposes to 
accomplish by means which preserve the character of the Supreme 
Governor from mistake, and maintain the authority of his govern- 
ment; and which give to man the strongest possible reason for 
hope, and render most favorable the circumstances of his earthly 
probation. 

How sin may be forgiven without leading to such misconceptions of 
the Divine character as would encourage disobedience, and thereby 
weaken the influence of the Divine government, is a problem of very dif- 
ficult solution. A government which never punishes offense is a con- 
tradiction — it cannot exist ; but one which admits no forgiveness sinks 
the guilty to inevitable destruction, and where all are guilty, makes the 
destruction universal. 



102 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

The Ruler of the world is not careless in regard to the conduct of his 
creatures ; for that penal consequences are attached to offense is mani- 
fest from daily observation. It is a principle already laid down, that the 
authority of God must be maintained ; and it ought to be observed, that 
in the kind of administration which restrains evil by penalty, and en- 
courages obedience by favor and hope, we and all moral creatures are 
the interested party, and not the Divine Governor. The reasons there- 
fore which move him to maintain his authority do not terminate in him- 
self. If he becomes a party against offenders it is for our sake, and for 
the sake of the moral order of the universe. And if the granting of par- 
don be strongly and even severely guarded, we are to refer it to the 
moral necessity of the case in order to secure the general welfare ; and 
not to any reluctance on the part of God to forgive, or to anything vin- 
dictive in his nature. 

If, then, the interests of the moral universe require that man's restora- 
tion to the Divine favor ought to be so granted that no license shall be 
given to offense, that the holiness and justice of God shall be as clearly 
manifested as his compassion, and that the awful authority of his gov- 
ernment shall be fully maintained, we ask, on what scheme, save that 
which is developed in the New Testament, are these necessary condi- 
tions provided for ? 

But may not sin be pardoned in the exercise of the Divine preroga- 
tive ? The reply is, that if this prerogative were exercised toward a 
part of mankind only, the passing by of others could not be reconciled 
to the character of God ; but if the benefit were extended to all, gov- 
ernment would be at an end. Nor is this scheme improved by confin- 
ing the act of grace to repentant criminals. What offender, in the im- 
mediate view of danger, feeling the vanity of guilty pleasures now past 
forever, and beholding the approach of delayed but threatened punish- 
ment, would not repent ? Were this principle to regulate human gov- 
ernments every criminal would escape, and judicial forms would become 
a subject for ridicule. 

Nor is this the principle on which the Divine Being governs men in 
the present state. Repentance does not restore health injured by intem- 
perance, property wasted by profusion, or character once stained by dis- 
honorable practices. If repentance alone can secure pardon, then all 
must be pardoned and government dissolved, as in the case of forgive- 
ness by mere prerogative ; but if a selection be made, then different and 
discordant principles of government are introduced into the Divine ad- 
ministration. 

To avoid the force of these obvious difiiculties some have added 
reformation to repentance, and would restrain forgiveness to those only 
who to their penitence add a course of future obedience to the Divine 
law. But a change of conduct does not, any more than repentance, re- 
pair the mischiefs of former misconduct. The sobriety of the reformed 



Chap. 8.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 103 

man does not always restore health ; and the industry and economy of 
the formerly negligent and wasteful do not repair the losses of extrava- 
gance. This theory is in direct opposition to the principles and practice 
of human governments, which in flagrant cases never suspend punish- 
ment in anticipation of a change of conduct ; but in the infliction of the 
penalty look steadily to the crime actually committed, and to the neces- 
sity of vindicating the majesty of violated law. 

But we may go farther and show that the reformation anticipated is 
impracticable. To make this clear, it must be recollected that they 
who advocate this theory leave out of it, not only the vicarious sacrifice 
of Christ, but also that agency of the Holy Spirit which awakens the 
thoughtless to consideration, and prompts and assists their efforts to 
attain a higher character. Man is therefore left, unassisted and unin- 
fluenced, to his own endeavors, and in the unalleviated circumstances 
of his morally depraved state. How then is this supposed reformation 
to commence? If man is totally corrupt, the only principles from 
which reformation can proceed do not exist in his nature ; and if only 
his propensity to evil is stronger than it is to good, it would be absurd 
to suppose that the weaker propensity should resist the stronger, that 
the rivulet should force its way against the tides of the ocean. The 
reformation, therefore, which is to atone for his vices is impracti- 
cable. 

How then can mercy be extended to our guilty race consistent with 
the character and government of God and with the highest interests of 
his moral creatures ? The only answer is found in the Holy Scriptures. 
They alone show, and indeed they alone profess to show, how God 
may be just, and yet the justifier of the ungodly. Other schemes show 
how he may be merciful ; but the difficulty lies not there. This meets 
it by declaring " the righteousness of God," at the same time that it 
proclaims his mercy. The voluntary sufferings of an incarnate Divine 
person " for us," in our room and stead, magnify the justice of God, 
display his hatred to sin, proclaim the " exceeding sinfulness " of trans- 
gression by the deep and painful agonies of the Substitute, warn the 
persevering offender of the terribleness and certainty of his punishment, 
and open the gates of salvation to every true penitent. 

The same Divine plan secures the influence of the Holy Spirit to 
awaken the wanderer to repentance and lead him back to God; to 
renew his fallen nature in righteousness at the moment he is justified 
through faith, and to qualify him to " walk not after the flesh, but after 
the Spirit." All the ends of government are here answered. No license 
is given to sin, the moral law is unrepealed, the day of judgment is 
still appointed, future and eternal punishments still display their awful 
sanctions, a new and singular manifestation of the Divine purity js 
afforded, pardon is offered to all who seek it, and the whole world 
may be saved ! 



104 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

With such evidence of suitableness to the case of mankind, and under 
such lofty views of connection with the principles and ends of moral 
government, does the doctrine of the Atonement present itself. But 
other important considerations are not wanting to mark the united 
wisdom and goodness of this method of extending mercy to the guilty. 
All that can most powerfully illustrate the united tenderness and awful 
majesty of God, and the odiousness and destructive tendency of sin ; 
all that can win back the heart of man to his Maker and Lord, and 
render future obedience a matter of affection and delight as well as 
duty; all that can extinguish the angry and malignant passions of man 
toward man ; all that can inspire a mutual benevolence, and dispose to 
a self-denying charity for the benefit of others ; and all that can arouse 
by hope, or tranquilize by faith, may be found in the vicarious death of 
Christ, and in the principles and purposes for which it was endured. 

4. The Doctrine of the Influence of the Holy Spirit. — The Scriptures 
represent man as being influenced, in his moral course, by spiritual 
agencies, as being solicited to persevering rebellion by the seductions 
of evil spirits, and to obedience by the influences of the Holy Spirit. 

It would be easy to show, if it were at ajl necessary, that no valid 
objection, either physical or moral, can be urged against the Scripture 
doctrine of Divine influence. But assuming for the present what we 
know to be true, that the doctrine itself is not unreasonable, we will 
inquire at once into some of its excellencies. 

(1.) It is suited to Maris Moral Condition. — The moral helplessness 
of man has been universally felt and universally acknowledged. To 
see the good, and to follow the evil, has been the complaint of all ; and 
precisely to such a state is the doctrine of Divine influence adaj^ted. 
As the atonement of Christ stoops to the judicial destitution of man, 
the promise of the Holy Spirit meets the case of his moral destitution. 
One finds him without any means of satisfying the claims of justice, 
the other without either inclination or strength to avail himself of 
offered pardon. The one relieves him from the penalty, the other from 
the disease of sin. The former restores him to the favor of God, the 
latter renews him in the Divine image. 

(2.) It gives an affecting vieic of the Divine Character.— -That ten- 
derness and compassion of God to his offending creatures ; that reluct- 
ance that they should perish ; that sympathizing anxiety to accomplish 
their salvation, which were displayed by the " cross of Christ," are 
here in continued and active manifestation. It is the office and work 
of the Spirit to convince the mistaken, to arouse the conscience of the 
guilty, to comfort the penitent and humble, and to plant, foster, and 
bring to maturity in the hearts of the obedient every grace and vir- 
tue. These are views of God which we could not have but for this 
doctrine ; and their obvious tendency is, to fill the heart with gratitude 
for a condescension so wonderful and a solicitude- so tender. 



Chap. 8.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 105 

(3.) It elevates our Aspirations, and encourages our Virtuous Efforts. — 
Were we left wholly to our own resources we should despair ; and 
perhaps it is exactly in proportion to the degree in which this promise 
of the Holy Spirit is apprehended by those who truly receive Christi- 
anity that they advance the standard of possible moral attainment. If 
God works in us a both to will and to do of his own good pleasure," it 
is a reason why we should " work out our own salvation with fear and 
trembling ;" for, as our freedom is not destroyed by the operations of 
the Spirit, and as even the Spirit may be grieved and quenched, our fall 
would be unspeakably aggravated by our advantages. Surely no one 
who cordially embraces this doctrine can despair of conquering any 
evil habit, of being fully renewed in the image of God, or of being 
sustained in the performance of any duty to which he may be called, 
even the most difficult and painful. Such are the practical effects of this 
doctrine. It prompts to attainments in inward sanctity and outward 
virtue which it would have been chimerical to consider possible but 
for the aid of a Divine influence, and it leads to exertion for the benefit 
of others the success of which would otherwise be too doubtful to en- 
courage the undertaking. 

It would be easy to adduce many other doctrines of our religion 
which, from their obvious excellence and correspondence with the 
experience and circumstances of mankind, furnish much interesting 
internal evidence in favor of its divinity. But as this would greatly 
exceed the limits of a chapter, and as those doctrines have been con- 
sidered against which the most strenuous objections from pretended 
rational principles have been urged — the moral state and condition of 
man, the atonement made by the death of Christ for the sins of the 
world and the influences of the Holy Spirit — it is sufficient for the argu- 
ment to have shown that even such doctrines are accompanied with 
important and interesting reasons, and that they powerfully commend 
Christianity to universal acceptance. What has been offered is only a 
mere specimen of the rational proof which accompanies many of the 
doctrines of revelation ; but a considerate mind may extend the argu- 
ment at pleasure. 

H. The Moral Tendency of the Sacred Scriptures. 

If these Scriptures declare to us the before "unknoion Qod" 
unknown even to the wisest of the heathen philosophers ; if they reveal 
man's true moral condition, and the only means by which he can be 
restored to the favor of God and renewed in his image ; if they contain 
every moral direction which can safely guide us, every promise which 
is suitable to our condition, and every hope which can animate us to 
run our course of probation and aspire to the high rewards of another 
life, then must their moral influence be as powerful as their doctrines 
are lofty and important. That the Bible, in this respect, is superior to 
every other system of religion, will appear evident from a few observations. 



106 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

1. A perfect System of Morals is nowhere to be found but in the Holy 
Scriptures; and the deficiencies of Pagan morality only exalt the purity, 
comprehensiveness, and practicability of ours. — The character of the 
Being acknowledged as supreme must always impress itself upon 
that morality which rests upon his will for its obligation. We have 
seen the views entertained by pagans on this all-important point, and 
their demoralizing effects. But the God of the Bible is " holy" without 
spot; "just" without intermission or partiality; " good" boundlessly 
benevolent and beneficent ; and his law is the image of himself, " holy, 
just, and good." 

2. With Pagans the great Principles of Morality, so far as they com- 
prehend them; were mere Abstractions, and therefore comparatively feeble 
in their influence. But in the person of Christ, our God incarnate, they 
are exemplified in action, displaying themselves amid human relations, 
and the actual circumstances of human life. With them the authority 
of moral rules was either the opinion of the wise or the tradition of the 
ancient, confirmed, it is true, in some degree by observation and expe- 
rience ; but to us they are given as commands immediately from the 
Supreme Governor, and ratified as his by the most solemn and explicit 
attestations. With them many great moral principles, being indis- 
tinctly apprehended, were matters of doubt and debate ; but with us 
the clear and authoritative manner in which they are revealed excludes 
both. 

3. Those who never had the benefit of Revelation have no just concep- 
tion of that moral state of the heart from which alone pure morality can 
flow. When, therefore, they speak of the same virtues as those enjoined 
in the Scriptures they attach to them a lower idea, and in this we see 
the great superiority of Christianity. It forbids not only the overt acts 
of vice, but even the very thoughts and desires of the heart from which 
they spring. It enjoins humanity, meekness, placability, and charity 
as clearly and solemnly as the grosser vices are prohibited. Nor are 
the injunctions feeble; they are strictly law, and not mere advice and 
recommendations. 

4. The Superiority of Christian Morality is also seen in the num- 
ber and strength of its motives. — A sense of duty to God and the fear 
of his displeasure are the highest motives of heathen morality. But to 
these Christianity adds the motive of tender and supreme love to God, 
excited by his infinite compassion to us in the gift of his Son; and 
another, which heathen moralists never knew, the testimony that we 
please God, manifested in the acceptance of our prayers and in spiritual 
and felicitous communion with him. A pagan could draw, though with 
imperfect lines, a beau ideal of virtue which he never thought to be 
attainable ; but to all who seek the renovation of their moral nature the 
religion of Christ gives the "full assurance of hope " that they shall 
obtain the desired object. 



Chap. 8.] INTEBNAL EVIDENCE. 107 

What, then, is the moral tendency of Christianity ? It is this : to free 
man from every passion which wastes, and burns, and frets, and enfee- 
bles his spirit ; and to lead him to the possession of that new nature, 
that peace of mind, and that joy unspeakable which will render his 
obedience voluntary, cheerful, and entire. On vast numbers of men it 
has superinduced these moral changes ; its way is still onward, and he 
who would arrest its progress, were he able, would quench the only 
hope which remains to our world and prove himself to be an enemy to 
mankind. 

We conclude, therefore, that the Scriptures are worthy of God, and 
that they propose the very ends which rendered a revelation necessary. 
To this whole system of practical religion we may apply the language 
of Mr. Wesley, in relation to our Lord's Sermon on the Mount : " Behold 
Christianity in its native form, as delivered by its great Author. See a 
picture of God, as far as he is imitable by man, drawn by God's own 
hand. What beauty appears in the whole ! How just a symmetry ! 
What exact proportions in every part ! How desirable is the happi- 
ness here described ! How venerable, how lovely is the holiness !"* 

III. The Wonderful Agreement of the Sacred Writers. 

The Bible contains the compositions of a vast variety of writers, men 
of every rank and condition, of every diversity of character and turn of 
mind. Among them are the monarch and the plebeian, the learned and 
the illiterate, the talented and the moderately gifted, the historian and 
the legislator, the orator and the poet. Some of them lived in ages dis- 
tant from one another, under different modes of civil government and 
in different dispensations of the Divine economy, filling a period of time 
which reached from the first dawn of heavenly light to its meridian 
glory. Each had his peculiar province ; " some apostles, and some 
prophets, and some evangelists and teachers" Here we have the writ- 
ers of the Old Testament and of the New, the prophets predicting 
future events and the Evangelists recording them; the doctrinal yet 
didactic epistolary writers, and him who closed the sacred canon in the 
Apocalyptic vision. These writers furnished their respective portions 
of the sacred volume under circumstances as varied as we can possibly 
imagine ; and yet in all its bearings, parts, and designs we find a most 
striking harmony, fitness, and adaptation of its component parts to one 
beautiful, stupendous, and united whole. 

" This instance of uniformity without design, of agreement without 
contrivance ; this consistency maintained through a long series of ages, 
without a possibility of the ordinary methods for conducting such a 
plan; these unparalleled congruities, these unexampled coincidences, 
form altogether a species of evidence of which there is no other instance 
in the history of all the other books in the world." The inevitable con- 
clusion from all this is, that these sacred writings, of which the Bible is 

* Wesley's Sermons. 



108 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book L 

composed, were dictated by one and the same omniscient and eternal 
Spirit. 

IV. The Style and Manner of the Sacred Writers. 

The style of the sacred writers is various, and thus accords with the 
profession that the Bible is a collection of books by different authors. 
Each has his own peculiarity so strongly marked and so equally sustained 
throughout the book ascribed to him as to be a forcible proof of genu- 
ineness. The writers of the New Testament employ Hebrew idioms, 
words, and phrases. The Greek in which they wrote is not classic 
Greek, but is such a dialect as would be used by persons acquiring the 
language, by frequent intercourse with strangers, where Chaldee or 
Syriac was spoken as the vernacular tongue. This affords an argument, 
from internal evidence, that the books were written by the persons 
whose names they bear. And as this particular style was changed after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, they must have been written in the first 
century. 

The manner of the sacred writers is in proof that they were conscious 
of the truth of what they related. The whole narrative is simple and 
natural. Even in the accounts given of the creation, the flood, the 
exodus from Egypt, and the events of the life and death of Christ, where 
designing men would have been most inclined to heighten the impress- 
ion by glowing and elaborate description, the same chastened simplicity 
is preserved. " These sober recorders of events the most astonishing 
are never carried away, by the circumstances they relate, into any pomp 
of diction or use of superlatives. Absorbed in their holy task, no alien 
idea presents itself to their mind. The object before them fills it. They 
never digress ; are never called away by the solicitations of vanity or 
the suggestions of curiosity. They never fill up the intervals between 
the events which they record. They leave circumstances to make their 
own impression, instead of helping out the reader by reflections of their 
own. They preserve the gravity of history and the severity of truth 
without enlarging the outline or swelling the expression."* 
* See Mrs. More's Character of St. Paul. 



Chap. 9.] COLLATERAL EVIDENCE. 109 



CHAPTER IX. 

DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES: COLLATERAL 

EVIDENCE. 

Much of the Collateral Evidence of the Divine authority of the Scrip- 
tures has been anticipated in the course of this discussion, and need not 
again be resumed. 

The agreement of the final revelation of the will of God, by the min- 
istry of Christ and his apostles, with former authenticated revelations, 
has been pointed out ; so that the whole constitutes one body of har- 
monious doctrines, gradually introduced, and at length fully unfolded 
and confirmed. 

The suitableness of the Christian revelation to the state of the world, 
at the time of its communication, follows from the view we have given 
of the necessity, not only of a revelation generally, but of such a revela- 
tion as God has granted to the world through his Son. 

It has also been shown that its historical facts accord with the cred- 
ible histories and traditions of the same time, that monuments remain 
to attest its truth in the institutions of the Christian Church, and that 
adversaries have made concessions in its favor. 

These sources of Collateral Evidence having been sufficiently consid- 
ered, we must confine our further remarks upon this subject to two par- 
ticulars, but each of very convincing character. The first is, the marvel- 
ous diffusion of Christianity in the first three centuries ; the second is, 
its ameliorating influence upon the condition of mankind. 

I. Its Marvelous Diffusion in the fiest theee Centueies. 

How are we to account for the fact, that the first preachers of the 
Gospel, though unaided by human power or philosophic wisdom, and 
even in opposition to both, effected a revolution in the opinions and 
manners of a great portion of the civilized world to which in the history 
of nations there is no parallel.* In the face of all opposition, and in a 
short period of time, they induced multitudes in various nations, dis- 
tinguished both by the peculiarity of their manners and the diversity of 

* The success of Mohammed, though sometimes presented as a parallel, is, in fact, both 
as to the means employed and the effect produced, a perfect contrast. The means were 
conquest and compulsion ; the effect was to legalize and sanctify the natural passions of 
man for plunder and sensual gratification ; and it is indeed strange that a contrast so 
marked should ever have been regarded as a correspondence. Men were persuaded, 
when they were not forced, to join the ranks of the Arabian impostor by the hope of 
plunder, and a present and future life of brutal gratification ; but they were persuaded to 
join the apostles by the evidence of truth and by the hope of future spiritual blessedness, 
but with the certainty of present disgrace and suffering. 



110 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

their language, to forsake the religious institutions of their ancestors, 
though sanctified by age, defended by vigorous authority, and associated 
with the most alluring gratification of the passions, and to embrace the 
religion of the despised Nazarene. Let us look both at the historical 
proof of the fact, and the evidence which it affords of the Divine author- 
ity of our holy religion. 

1 . The Historical Proof of the Fc&t. — We have the testimony of Tac- 
itus, about thirty years after the crucifixion, to the extensive propaga- 
tion of Christianity even in the apostolic age. Speaking of the Christian 
religion, he says: "This pernicious superstition, though checked for a 
while, broke out again, and spread not only over Judea, but reached 
the city of Rome also. At first they only were apprehended who con- 
fessed themselves to belong to that sect ; afterward a vast multitude 
were discovered and cruelly punished."* This testimony is of great 
value, because it shows in how short a period of time Christianity had 
passed from the distant province of Judea to Rome, and with what 
success it was attended in the capital of the world. 

We learn from the younger Pliny, who presided over Pontus and 
Bithynia in the beginning of the second century, that in his province 
the Gospel could boast of numerous disciples. " The contagion of this 
superstition," says he, in his well-known letter to Trajan, " has not only 
invaded cities, but the smaller towns also, and the whole country." He 
tells us, moreover, that until he began to use severities against the 
Christians the temples of the heathen gods were almost deserted, 
and that those who sold victims for sacrifice could hardly find 
purchasers.-)- 

These are testimonies of heathens, who could have no interest in mag- 
nifying the number of the Christians ; but they agree substantially with 
the testimony of the Christian fathers, as a few quotations will show. 
About the middle of the second century Justin Martyr writes: " There 
is not a nation, Greek or Barbarian, or of any other name, even of those 
who wander in tribes and live in tents, among whom prayers and 
thanksgivings are not offered to the Father and Creator of the universe 
in the name of the crucified Jesus." Near the close of this century 
Tertullian, in his Apology, appeals thus to the Roman governors : a We 
were but of yesterday, and we have filled your cities and towns ; the 
camp, the senate, and the forum." Origen, in the early part of the third 
century, says : " By the good providence of God the Christian religion 
has so flourished and increased that it is now preached freely, and with- 
out molestation." 

But the great fact in connection with this subject is, that in the year 

A. D. 300 Christianity became the established religion of the Roman 

empire, and Paganism was abolished. It follows from this event that 

the religion which thus became triumphant must have been embraced 

* Anna!., lib. xv, cap. 44. f Plin., Ep. x, 91, 98. 



Chap. 9.] COLLATERAL EVIDENCE. Ill 

by a large majority of the one hundred and twenty millions supposed 
to be contained in that empire ; for otherwise no emperor would have 
attempted to change the religion of so vast a state, nor could such a 
change have been effected had the attempt been made. Let us then 
look at this wonderful success of the Christian cause, 

2. As a Proof of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures. — To 
present the argument in its true light a few remarks will be neces- 
sary. 

(1.) We do not affirm that mere success is a decisive proof of the 
truth and divinity of a religion; for this success may not be owing to 
the justice of its claims, but to other causes. A religion may spread, 
not indeed as rapidly as did Christianity, but gradually, through its 
adaptation to the opinions, prejudices, inclinations, and worldly inter- 
ests of men. Great effects may be produced in the course of time, by 
the united influence of artifice and authority, when there is a disposition 
to yield to them. We can account in this manner for the progress of 
idolatry in the heathen world, and in the Christian Church during the 
dark ages. A religion may be rapidly and extensively propagated by 
force. Of this we have an example in that of Mohammed, which 
diffused itself in a short time over several countries in the East. 

(2.) But to none of these causes can we attribute the success of the 
Christian Religion during the first three centuries. — We know of one 
religion which was propagated by the sword ; but our Lord, unlike 
Mohammed in this, as in every other part of his character, made no use 
of carnal weapons to disseminate his religion, and positively disclaimed 
them. " My kingdom," said he, " is not of this world. If my kingdom 
were of this world then would my servants fight, that I should not be 
delivered to the Jews : but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 
xviii, 36. Hence said the apostle, "The weapons of our warfare are 
not carnal;" but still these weapons were "mighty through God." 
2 Cor. x, 4. 

(3.) Nor did its success depend upon any support or protection which 
it received from the civil authority. — It is a well-authenticated fact, not 
only that Christianity was unaided by the secular arm, but that it made 
its way in the face of strong and persevering opposition. Those who 
professed this despised religion were exposed to the loss of property, 
of country, of liberty, and of life. They were tortured with every 
species of cruelty, and accounted the enemies of the human race. 
The emperors armed the magistrates with authority, and the fury of 
the populace supplied additional means of destruction. Neither age nor 
sex was spared ; and for centuries a succession of sanguinary persecu- 
tions, with only short intervals of repose, marked the pr<%ress of the 
Christian Church. The struggle was prolonged nearly three hundred 
years, during which the blood of Christian martyrs flowed in torrents in 
almost every part of the Roman empire. But truth ultimately pre- 



112 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

vailed, and the religion of the man whom his countrymen rejected 
was established in every Roman province. 

(4.) It vjas not because Christianity was suited to the opinions, the 
prejudices, the carnal inclinations, and the worldly interests of men 
that it so wonderfully prevailed. — The Gospel was "to the Jews a 
stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness." Each of these classes 
found something in it which was irreconcilable with their preconceived 
opinions. It was a stumbling-block to the Jews, because it proclaimed 
a suffering Messiah, a spiritual kingdom, and salvation to the Gentiles, 
as well as to the sons of Abraham. It was foolishness to the Greeks, 
because, setting aside their learned speculations and splendid supersti- 
tions, it called upon them to acknowledge a God unknown to their 
ancestors, and a Mediator of whom they had never before heard, and 
to yield an unhesitating assent to doctrines which were new, strange, 
and inexplicable by the principles of philosophy. It demanded of its 
votaries the renunciation of all sinful habits and pursuits, the sacrifice 
of worldly honors and pleasures, and, conditionally, of life itself. It 
prescribed humility, the mortification of appetite, and a course of cir- 
cumspect and persevering obedience ; and the promised recompense lay 
in another world, of which they could have no knowledge but by im- 
plicitly depending upon the word of its Author. 

(5.) JBut who were the immediate instruments in this marvelous dif- 
fusion of Gospel truth? — Were they the wise, the learned, and the 
eloquent ? These, according to human policy, would have been re- 
garded as the fittest persons to accomplish the work ; but with such 
our Lord had no connection. He used no means to secure their assist- 
ance, nor did he seem to desire it. He selected, for the execution of 
this great enterprise, those whom every other person would have 
rejected as being destitute of the necessary qualifications. They were 
fishermen and tax-gatherers, without learning, reputation, or friends. 
They were men whose appearance was ungainly, whose manners were 
unpolished, and who, instead of drawing attention to their doctrines 
by the arts of oratory, would render it still more revolting by the rude- 
ness of their speech. Yet these are the persons who were chosen to 
propagate a religion which was unacceptable to all classes of men ; but 
which nevertheless aimed at universal dominion, requiring the priest, 
the philosopher, and the statesman to bow to its authority and become 
its lowly disciples. 

(6.) Now, as the human means employed in the propagation of the 
Gospel were manifestly inadequate, we must attribute its success to 
supernatural agency. — It is a species of miracle which does not strike 
the eye, but the mind. Something has been done, not indeed without 
means, but above them ; and it is as truly wonderful as was the flowing 
of water from the rock when Moses smote it with his rod. A power was 
exerted beyond that which resided in the means employed : it was the 



Chap. 9.] COLLATERAL EVIDENCE. 113 

power of God. And if means and instruments were selected apparently- 
incompetent in themselves, it was for the express purpose of making 
that power manifest, and of furnishing a decisive evidence that Christi- 
anity is Divine. This thought is forcibly presented by St. Paul. " God 
hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise ; and 
God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things 
which are mighty ; and base things of the world, and things which are 
despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to 
naught things that are : that no flesh should glory in his presence." 
1 Cor. i, 27-29. The same writer, in speaking directly of the Gospel, 
says : " We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of 
the power may be of God, and not of us." 2 Cor. iv, 7. 

We come now to consider, 

II. The Ameliorating Influence of Christianity upon the Con- 
dition of Mankind. 

The actual effects which Christianity produced in the world, and 
which it is still producing, are strong arguments in support of its 
Divine authority. In every pagan country where it has prevailed it has 
abolished idolatry with its sanguinary and polluted rites. It has raised 
the standard of morality; and by that means, even where its full effects 
have not been exerted, it has insensibly improved the manners of every 
Christian state. It abolished infanticide and human sacrifices, which 
were so prevalent among ancient and modern heathens. 

Christianity has borne its testimony against polygamy and divorce; 
and, by the institution of marriage in an indissoluble bond, has given 
birth to a felicity and sanctity in the domestic circle which it never 
before knew. It has exalted the character and condition of woman, 
and by that means has humanized man. He no longer imposes upon 
her feeble shoulders the meanest and most servile occupations of life, 
thus treating her with injustice, cruelty, and ungenerous contempt ; but, 
inspired by the refining and ennobling principles of the Gospel, he feels 
in his breast a new and important affection, which Christianity alone 
can create, the love of woman, founded on esteem. 

Christianity abolished domestic slavery in ancient Europe, and from 
its principles the struggle which is now maintained against this great 
evil draws its energy and promises a triumph as complete. It has 
given a milder character to war, and taught modern nations to treat 
their prisoners with humanity, and to restore them by exchange to 
their respective countries. It has laid the basis of a jurisprudence 
more just and equal, given civil rites to subjects, and placed restraints 
on absolute power, and crowned its achievements by its charity. Hos- 
pitals, schools, and many other institutions for the benefit of the aged 
and the poor, are almost exclusively its own creations ; and they abound 
most where its influence's most powerful. 

The same effects are still resulting from its influence in every heathen 

8 



114 DIVINE AUTHOEITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

country into which it has been carried. In some of them idolatry has 
been renounced ; infants, and widows, and aged persons, who would 
have been immolated to their gods or abandoned by their cruelty, have 
been preserved, and are now "living to praise its Divine Author, 
as they do at this day" In other instances the light is prevailing 
against the darkness, and those systems of dark and sanguinary super- 
stition which have stood for ages only to pollute and oppress, without 
any symptom of decay, now betray the shocks which they have sus- 
tained by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ and nod to their 
final fall. 

Such are the leading evidences of the truth of the Holy Scriptures, 
and of the religious system which they unfold, from the first promise 
made to the first fallen man to its perfected exhibition in the New 
Testament. The Christian will review these solid and immovable 
foundations of his faith with unutterable joy. They leave none of his 
moral interests unprovided for in time, and they set before him a certain 
and felicitous immortality. 

The infidel may be entreated by every compassionate feeling to a 
more serious consideration of the evidences of this Divine system, and 
the difficulties and hopelessness of his own ; and we would remind him 
that " if Christianity be true it is tremendously true." Let him turn to 
an insulted, but yet merciful Saviour, who even now prays for his ene- 
mies as once he prayed for his murderers : " Father, forgive them ; 

FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO !" 



CHAPTER X. 

DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES: MISCELLANE- 
OUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

In meeting the objections which are urged against the Bible, it will be 
our purpose to expose them, in as few words as possible, to the sun- 
light of truth. The mere cavils of infidel writers may he hastily dis- 
missed, but the most plausible objections shall be considered more at 
large. 

1. It is objected that reason is a sufficient guide in religion, that reve- 
lation is therefore unnecessary, and that it reflects upon the wisdom of 
the Creator, as if he had not at first duly fitted man for the end of his 
being, and consequently found it expedient afterward to supply the 
defect. 

This specious infidelity, called " deism," or " the religion of nature" 
made its appearance in France and Italy about the middle of the six- 



Chap. 10.] MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 115 

• 
teenth century, and was first advocated in England early in the seven- 
teenth century by Lord Herbert of Cherbury. He lays down five pri- 
mary articles of religion which, he says, are all discoverable by our 
natural faculties, and contain everything that is necessary to be believed. 
They are, that there is a supreme God, that he is chiefly to be wor- 
shiped, that piety and virtue are the principal parts of his worship, that 
repentance expiates offense, and that there is a state of future rewards 
and punishments. 

The history of infidelity from this time is, however, a striking com- 
ment upon the words of St. Paul, that " evil men and seducers shall 
wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived ;" for in the prog- 
ress of this deadly error every one of Lord Herbert's five articles has 
been called in question or given up: Hobbes regarded our duty to 
God as a chimera, the civil magistrate being supreme in all things. 
Shaftesbury denied the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. 
Hume attempted to overthrow the argument for the existence of God 
from the frame of the universe, by denying the relation between cause 
and effect. By some the worship of God has been rejected as unrea- 
sonable because he needs not our praises, and is not to be turned from 
his purposes by our prayers. 

And as- to future rewards and punishments, philosophy has discov- 
ered, since the days of Lord Herbert, that the human soul, being a 
mere result of organization, dies with the body. The great principle 
of the English proto-infidel, " the sufficiency of our own natural facul- 
ties to form a religion for ourselves," is, however, the foundation of all 
these theories ; and this being conceded, the instances just given are a 
sufficient refutation of the objection. Nothing, therefore, can be more 
absurd than to wrangle about the sufficiency of reason when it has 
proved itself to be insufficient in every trial. The fact is a stubborn 
one, and no speculation can set it aside. 

Nor does this fact imply a reflection upon the wisdom of the Creator. 
With us there is no difficulty in accounting for it. We believe that 
reason, when first conferred, was fully adequate to all the purposes 
which it was intended to serve ; but that it has since been impaired 
and perverted by sin, which has both darkened the understanding and 
corrupted the heart. It is, therefore, subject to be led astray by the 
imagination and the passions, to adopt false principles, and to draw 
erroneous conclusions. 

2. It is alleged, as an objection to the Divine authority of the pro- 
phetic Scriptures, that some of the prophecies have failed. The follow- 
ing are the principal instances referred to : 

(1.) It has been said that a false promise was made to Abraham when 
he was told that his descendants should possess the territory which lies 
between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt. But this objection is 
evidently made in ignorance of the Scriptures ; for the fact is that 



116 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

David conquered that territory, and that the dominions of Solomon 
were thus actually extended.* 

(2.) Yoltaire objects that the prophets made promises to the Jews of 
the most unbounded riches, dominion, and influence; but they have 
lost their possessions instead of obtaining either property or power, 
and therefore the prophecies are false. But the case is here unfairly 
stated, for the prophets never made such exaggerated promises. They 
predicted many spiritual blessings, to be bestowed in the times of Mes- 
siah, under figures drawn from worldly opulence and power, which no 
attentive reader can mistake. They also promised many civil advant- 
ages, but conditionally, on the obedience of the nation ; and they spoke 
in high terms of the state of the Jews upon their final restoration, for 
which objectors must wait before they can determine the predictions 
to be false. 

Moreover, Voltaire should have known that the reverses of the Jews 
of which he speaks were clearly predicted, and that his very objection 
acknowledges the truth of prophecy. The promises of the prophets 
have not been falsified, while their threatenings have been signally 
fulfilled. 

(3.) Paine asserts that the prophecy of Isaiah to Ahaz was not veri- 
fied by the event. The history of this prophecy, as delivered in the 
seventh chapter of Isaiah, is this : Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king 
of Israel, made war upon Ahaz king of Judah, with the declared pur- 
pose of making an entire revolution in the government of Judah, of 
destroying the royal house of David, and of placing another family on 
the throne. Their purpose is thus expressed : " Let us go up against 
Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a 
king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal." Now what did Isaiah 
say to Ahaz? Did he say, The kings shall not vex thee ? shall not con- 
quer thee ? shall not succeed against thee ? No : but he said, " It {the 
purpose of the two kings) shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass." 
Did it stand ? did it come to pass ? Was there any revolution effected? 
Was the house of David dethroned and destroyed ? Was Tabeal ever 
made king of Judah ? No. The prophecy was therefore perfectly 
accomplished. 

(4.) The same writer attempts to fix a charge of false vaticination 
upon Jeremiah. He refers to a prediction which the prophet delivered 
to King Zedekiah, and which is recorded in the thirty-fourth chapter of 
his prophecies, in these words: "Thine eyes shall behold the eyes 
of the king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to 
mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon. Thou shalt not die by the sword ; 
but thou shalt die in peace. And with the burnings of thy fathers, the 
former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odors for 
thee." 

* See 2 Sam. viii; 1 Chron. xviii. 



Chap. 10.] MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWEKED. 117 

Mr. Paine alleges that this prediction was not fulfilled; but that the very- 
reverse was the case, according to the eleventh verse of the fifty-second 
chapter. It is there stated that the king of Babylon " put out the eyes 
of Zedekiah, and bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and 
put him in prison till the day of his death." He asks, therefore, " What 
can we say of these prophets but that they are impostors and liars ?" 
This, however, can be said in truth, that the prophecy was fulfilled in 
all its parts. Zedekiah beheld the eyes of the king of Babylon when 
he* was brought before him at Riblah. The king spoke with Zedekiah 
mouth to mouth when he gave judgment upon him, or, as the margin 
has it, " spake judgments with him." He was carried to Babylon. He 
did not die by the sword, nor did he fall in battle. He died in peace, 
for he neither expired upon the rack nor on the scaffold ; he was neither 
strangled nor poisoned ; he died upon his bed, though that bed was in 
a prison. It cannot be shown from the history that the prediction in 
regard to the funeral burnings was fulfilled, nor can it be proved that it 
was not ; but as every other part was accomplished, the fair conclusion 
is that this was also.* 

(5.) Mr. Paine quotes also a passage from the twenty-ninth chapter of 
Ezekiel, where, speaking of Egypt, the prophet said : " No foot of man 
shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither 
shall it be inhabited forty years." This, he says, " never came to pass, 
and consequently is false." 

Now, as the history of Egypt at that remote period is very imper- 
fectly known, it is at least hasty to conclude, even if we had no evidence 
in support of the prophecy, that it never was accomplished. But that 
the predicted invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar did come to pass 
we have the testimony of Megasthenes and Berosus, two heathen histori- 
ans, who lived about three hundred years before Christ. This invasion 
was as devastating in its character as was that of Judea ; and we know 
that the greater part of the inhabitants of that country were destroyed 
or led captive, and that the land, though not absolutely left without 
inhabitants, generally remained uncultivated for seventy years. In such 
circumstances, from the total cessation of all former intercourse between 
the different parts of the kingdom, it might without exaggeration be 
said that the foot of man and of beast did not " pass through it," 
their going from one part to another on business or for worship at Jeru- 
salem being wholly suspended. And as we have no reason to suppose 
that Nebuchadnezzar was more merciful to Egypt than to Judea, the 
same expressions might be used, in a popular sense, in regard to that 
country. 

It is admitted that no period can be pointed out, from the time of 
Ezekiel to the present, in which there was no foot of man or of beast to 
be seen in all Egypt for forty years. The language is evidently hyper- 
* See 2 Kings xxv, 5-? ; Jer. lii, 10, 11. 



118 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

bolical, and we are not to expect a literal accomplishment of a hyper- 
bolical expression. We only claim for the prediction that it denotes a 
great desolation ; importing that the trade of Egypt, which was carried 
on by caravans — by the foot of man and of beast — should be suspended 
for forty years. No one, however, can prove that the prophecy was not 
so fully accomplished that the expression might be used without violent 
hyperbole. 

3. It is objected that the Bible has a demoralizing influence upon 
society, and therefore cannot be divinely inspired. In proof of this 
various facts and circumstances are urged, the strongest of which we will 
consider. 

(l.) It records the failings and vices of some of its leading characters. 
The fact is not denied ; but the objectors suppress what is equally true, 
that these vices are never mentioned with approbation ; that the char- 
acters stained with them are not, in those respects, held up for our imi- 
tation ; and that such things are recorded for our admonition. They 
dwell upon the crimes of David, and sneer at his being called " a man 
after God's own heart" But they seem not to know that this character 
was ascribed to David long before he committed those crimes ; that, 
even if this were not so, the language had respect to his qualifications 
as a king, and not to his moral character, and that those very crimes 
were tremendously visited by the displeasure of the Almighty. This 
objection to the Bible has therefore no force in the direction intended, 
but it furnishes a strong argument in favor of the honesty and sin- 
cerity of the sacred writers. Had they been cunning impostors no such 
acknowledgments of crimes and frailties would have been made. 

But what has been the effect of infidelity upon the morals of its advo- 
cates ? Blount committed suicide because he was prevented from an 
incestuous marriage ; Tyndal was notoriously infamous ; Hobbes changed 
his principles with his interests ; Morgan continued to profess Christian- 
ity while he wrote against it ; the moral character of Voltaire was mean 
and detestable ; Bolingbroke was a rake and a flagitious politician; Collins 
and Shaftesbury qualified themselves for civil office by receiving the Lord's 
Supper, while they were endeavoring to prove the religion of Christ to be 
an imposture ; Hume was revengeful, disgustingly vain, and an advocate 
of adultery and self-murder ; Paine was the slave of low and degrading 
habits ; and Rousseau was an abandoned sensualist, and guilty of the 
basest actions. Was it ever found that a truly virtuous and humble 
man was an infidel ? Does infidelity abound among the devout, the 
pure, the modest, and the dispassionate inquirers after truth ? Or, are 
not rather its advocates profane and dissipated, smatterers in knowl- 
edge, false pretenders to philosophy and self-conceited speculatists, who, 
from their imaginary eminence, look down with contempt upon the 
opinions and pursuits of the multitude. 

(2.) The extermination of the Canaanites by the Jews, according to 



Chap. 10.] MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 119 

the Divine command, is urged as an act of the greatest cruelty and 
injustice. But this objection cannot be urged upon the mere ground that 
it is contrary to Divine justice or mercy to cut off a people indiscrimi- 
nately, for this has been done by earthquakes and pestilences. What 
is here ascribed to the God of the Bible, does not therefore contradict 
the character of the God of nature. 

But was it consistent with the character of God to employ human 
agents in this work of destruction ? Who can prove that it was not ? 
Surely no one ; and yet here lies the whole stress of the objection. 
The Jews were not rendered more cruel by their being so commissioned, 
for we find them much more merciful in their institutions than other 
ancient nations. Nor can this instance be pleaded in favor of extermin- 
ating wars ; for there was in the case a special commission for a special 
purpose, and by that it was limited. 

Moreover, the sins of the Canaanites were of so gross a nature that 
it was necessary to mark them with signal punishments for the bene- 
fit of surrounding nations. And the employing of the Israelites as 
instruments, under a special and publicly proclaimed commission, con- 
nected the punishment more visibly with the offense than if it had been 
inflicted by the array of warring elements ; while the Israelites them- 
selves would be more deeply impressed with the guilt of idolatry, and 
its ever accompanying polluted and sanguinary rites. 

(3.) That law in the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy, which 
authorizes parents to bring a rebellious and intemperate son before the 
elders of the city that, if guilty, he might be stoned to death, has been 
called inhuman and brutal. In point of fact, however, it was a merciful 
regulation. In almost all ancient nations parents had the power of 
taking away the life of their children. This was a branch of the old 
patriarchal authority which did not all at once merge into the kingly 
governments which were afterward established. There is reason, there- 
fore, to believe that it was possessed by the heads of families among the 
Israelites, and that this was the first attempt to control it, by requir- 
ing the crimes alleged against their children to be proved before 
regular magistrates, that the effects of unbridled passions might be 
prevented. 

(4.) The intentional offering of Isaac by Abraham has also had its 
share of censure. The answer is : 1. That Abraham had no doubt of 
the Divine command in the case, and of the right of God to take away 
the life which he had given. 2. That he proceeded to execute the com- 
mand of God in faith, as St. Paul has stated, that God would raise his 
Son from the dead. Had this transaction been so stated as to encour- 
age human sacrifices it might be fairly objected to, but here are suf- 
ficient guards : an indubitable Divine command was given, the sacrifice 
was prevented by the same authority, and the history stands in a book 
whicli prohibits human sacrifices. 



120 DIVINE AUTHOEITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

(5.) Indelicacy and immodesty have been charged upon some parts 
of the Scriptures. We reply, that in no instance is any statement made 
in order to incite impurity ; and nothing throughout the whole Scrip- 
tures is represented as being more offensive to God than the unlawful 
gratification of the senses. It is also to be noted, that many of the 
passages objected to are in the laws and prohibitions of both Testa- 
ments ; and as well might the laws of the land be held up as tending to 
encourage vices of various kinds because they must, in order to pro- 
hibit them, describe them with more or less circumstantiality. 

We must also take into the account the simplicity of manners and 
language in early times. We observe, even among the peasantry of 
modern states, a language on the subject referred to which is more 
direct, and what refined society would call gross ; but greater real indel- 
icacy does not follow. 

These cases have been adduced as specimens of the objections which 
infidels urge against the Scriptures, and of the ease with which they 
may be met. For others of a similar kind, and for answers to objec- 
tions founded upon supposed contradictions between different passages 
of Scripture, reference must be made to commentators.* A little skill, 
however, in the original languages of the Scriptures, and in the times, 
occasions, and scope of the sacred books, as also in the antiquities and 
customs of those countries in which the recorded transactions took 
place, will always clear the main difficulty. 

4. It is objected to the Bible that it contains mysteries and doctrines 
contrary to reason. It has been a favorite practice with unbelievers to 
institute a contrast between natural philosophy and revelation, the book 
of nature and the book of God, and to set the plainness and simplicity 
of the one against the mysteriousness of the other. The ground of all 
this is an unwillingness to receive as authorized doctrine what is incom- 
prehensible. They contend that if a revelation has been made there 
can be no mysteries in it ; and that to hold things incomprehensible to 
be a part of it is a contradiction, and fatal to its claims as a reve- 
lation. 

The sophism here is easily answered. There are many doctrines and 
duties in which no mystery at all is involved ; and as to incomprehensi- 
ble subjects, nothing is more certain than that a fact may be clearly 
revealed, as that God is eternal and omnipresent, and still remain mys- 
terious and incomprehensible. The fact is not revealed in a difficult, 
obscure, or mysterious manner, the only sense in which the objection 
could be valid. As a fact, it is clearly revealed that these are attributes 
of the Divine nature ; but notwithstanding this clear and indubitable 
revelation they are still incomprehensible. It is not revealed how God 
is eternal and omnipresent, nor is such a revelation pretended ; but 

* See a copious collection of these supposed contradictions, with judicious explanations, 
in the Appendix to volume i of Home's Introduction. 



Chap. 10.] MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 121 

that He is so. The same remarks will apply to the doctrine of the 
Trinity, and to many other doctrines of the sacred Scriptures. 

But if men hesitate to admit incomprehensible subjects as matters of 
faith, they cannot be permitted to fly for relief from revelation to philos- 
ophy, much less to claim that the latter is superior to the former in the 
clearness of its manifestations. Here too it will be seen that mystery 
and truth go inseparably together, and that he who embraces facts em- 
braces at the same time the mystery of their causes. For instance, 
attraction, gravitation, cohesion, electricity, and magnetism are all 
admitted facts ; but though the experimental and inductive philosophy 
of modern times has led to many discoveries of the relations, and in 
some cases of the proximate causes of these phenomena, yet their real 
causes are all confessedly hidden. And here it may be added, that if 
we turn our attention to the science of mechanics, or even to that of 
pure mathematics, we will still meet with much that is incomprehen- 
sible. 

5. Analogical reasoning has made it probable that the planets of our 
system, and those of others, may be inhabited by moral beings like our- 
selves. Hence, infidels have argued the improbability that a Divine 
Person should have been sent into this world for its instruction and 
salvation, when, in comparison with the solar system, it is but a point, 
and that system itself, in comparison with the universe, may be nothing 
more. 

Plausible as this may appear, nothing can have less weight, even if 
only the philosophy and not the theology of the case be considered. 
The intention with which man is thus compared with the universe is, 
to prove his insignificance; and the comparison must be made either 
between man and the vastness of planetary and stellar matter, or between 
the number of mankind and the number of supposed planetary inhabit- 
ants. If the former, we make corporeal magnitude the standard of 
real worth. It will therefore follow that a mountain is of more value 
than a man, in proportion as its magnitude is greater than his ; that the 
smaller the disproportion between the man and the mountain, the less 
would be the relative insignificance of the former ; and that if the 
smaller object be increased in magnitude, its dignity must be propor- 
tionately increased in the true nature of things. The Irish giant, there- 
fore, whose altitude exceeded eight feet, would exceed in relative dig- 
nity, by the same proportion, Bacon or Newton, whose height did 
not attain to six feet. But if this is nonsense, then must that also be 
nonsense from which these conclusions are legitimately drawn. 

If we consider the dignity of an intelligent being, and put that in the 
scale against mere matter, we may affirm, without overvaluing human 
nature, that the soul of one virtuous man is of greater worth and excel- 
lence than the sun and his planets, and all the stars in the universe. 
Let us not then make bulk the standard of value, nor judge of the im- 



122 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [Book I. 

portance of man from the weight of his body, or from the size or situa- 
tion of the planet which is now the place of his abode. If, therefore, 
man possesses another magnitude, which can be brought to another and 
different scale of computation, a scale which determines him to be of 
more value than the material universe, then it would not be irrational 
to suppose that the highest mountains and the widest regions, and the 
entire system to which they pertain, may be made subservient to his 
interests. § 

Such a scale is that by which the intelligent, moral, and immortal 
nature of man is to be measured, and which the sacred historian calls a 
formation "after the image and likeness of God f a scale but little 
regarded in the science of mere physics. As soon, however, as the 
mind clearly apprehends this moral scale of magnitude, and perceives 
that though man's present existence is bounded by a very short period, 
yet his moral nature is unlimited in time, and will outlast all the mount- 
ains of the globe, it then perceives, at the same moment, the deceitful 
character of the objection which was urged with so much apparent 
humility. 

If the comparison of man with mere material magnitude will not then 
support this effort to effect his degradation and to shame him out of his 
trust in the lovingkindness of his God, so neither will the argument 
which may be drawn from the supposed number of other intelligent 
beings. Their number cannot alter his character ; for, though there 
may be myriads of immortal beings besides himself, yet he is still 
immortal, and still has his immense capacity for pleasure and for pain. 
Unless, therefore, it could be proved that the care of God for each of 
his creatures must be diminished as their number is increased, the 
argument can have no force. But such a supposition would be a base 
and unworthy reflection upon the supreme Creator himself, as though 
he could not bestow upon all the beings he has made a care and a love 
adequate to their circumstances. 

That man is governed by the providence of God none but an atheist 
will deny ; but any argument drawn from such premises as the preced- 
ing would conclude as forcibly against Providence as it can be made to 
conclude against redemption. And if, by a stupendous exuberance of 
animal, vegetable, and mineral productions, and the wonderful distribu- 
tion of light and heat, God supplies the means of life and comfort to 
the short-lived inhabitants of this globe, can it be incredible, nay, does 
not this consideration render it in the highest degree probable that he 
has also prepared the means of eternal happiness for beings whom he 
has formed for endless duration ? 

There is, however, another consideration, which gives a sublime and 
overwhelming grandeur to the Scripture view of redemption, but of 
which infidel philosophers appear never to have entertained the least 
conception. It is the moral connection of this world with the whole 



Chap. 10.] MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



123 



universe of intelligent creatures, and the intention of God to convey 
moral instruction to other beings by the history of his moral govern- 
ment in regard to man. Intimations of this great and impressive view 
are found in various passages of the New Testament, and it opens a 
scene of inconceivable moral magnificence, " to the intent that now unto 
the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the 
Church the manifold wisdom of God."* 



* See Dr. Beattie's Evidences of the Christian Religion, and Dr. Chalmers's Discourses 
on Modern Astronomy. 



124 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. [Book II. 



BOOK II. 

DOCTRINES RESPECTING GOD. 

The Divine Authority of the Sacred Scriptures having been established, 
our next step is to examine their contents, and to collect from them 
that religious and moral instruction which they contain. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 



A belief in the existence of God lies at the foundation of all religion, 
and is the only basis of true morality. This will appear evident if we 
inquire into the meaning of the terms religion and morality. By relig- 
ion is meant either a system of doctrines of which God is the subject, 
or a system of affections and conduct of which he is the object. Moral- 
ity sometimes denotes the practice of moral duties merely from motives 
of convenience or from a regard to our own reputation, and in this 
sense it may be distinguished from religion ; but when it is understood 
in its true light it means the practice of moral duties from love to God 
and in obedience to his will, and consequently it is necessarily included 
in the idea of religion. 

It follows, therefore, that if there were no God there could be no 
religion, no moral obligation, no hope of reward, no fear of punishment. 
There could in reality be neither virtue nor vice; for men would be 
under no law but that of stern necessity, and could propose to them- 
selves no higher end than the securing of their temporal happiness by 
every possible means. But if there is a God of infinite power, wisdom, 
and goodness, he ought to be loved, worshiped, and obeyed by all his 
intelligent creatures. 

The opinion has been entertained that it is irreverent to adduce proofs 
in favor of the Divine existence, because it seems to call in question a 
truth which it is impiety to doubt. There are considerations, however, 



Chap. l."| THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 125 

that will show the propriety and the utility of an investigation of this 
kind. 

Thotigh it is true that mankind generally believe in the existence of 
God, yet it is equally true that a large proportion of them have em- 
braced the tenet upon the ground of mere authority, without any care- 
ful examination of the evidence on which it rests. Such persons would 
be unable to give a rational account of their faith, or to defend them- 
selves against the attacks of infidelity. Hence it is necessary for every 
man to examine the ground of his faith, that he may be able to give a 
reason of his hope. 

Moreover, it is of the utmost importance that a truth on which the 
hopes and happiness of mankind are suspended should be deeply 
impressed upon the mind. But there is nothing so well suited to pro- 
duce this result, in relation to the Divine existence, as a thorough and 
frequent review of the evidences of this fact by which men are every- 
where surrounded. 

It may also be added that no one knows to what severe trials his faith 
may be subjected through the temptation of the devil. Men of deep 
piety have sometimes experienced moments of darkness, in which they 
have entertained doubts, not only of the providence and goodness of 
God, but even of his very existence. This is a subject, therefore, which 
every man should examine for himself, and in regard to which he should 
obtain clear and enlightened views. 

The word God is supposed to be derived from the Icelandic godi, 
which signifies Supreme Magistrate, or Governor of the Universe. It 
is also a pure Anglo-Saxon term, which among our ancestors literally 
signified good. When, therefore, they thought or spoke of the being 
whom we call God, they were taught by the primary meaning of the 
term employed to regard him as%being emphatically the Good Being, 
the fountain of infinite benevolence. 

The Hebrew word which is translated God is JElohim. This, the 
learned say, is derived from the Arabic aloha, which means to worship, 
to adore. Thus God is characterized as the only proper object of wor- 
ship and adoration. In Greek the name of God is Theos, and in Latin, 
JDeus ; both of which signify the Supreme Divinity, or Ruler of the 
Universe. 

The question has been asked, Can God be defined ? To this we reply, 
first, that if a definition must necessarily contain a complete description 
of the nature and attributes of the object defined a definition of God is 
impossible, because no definition can be given which will fully exhaust 
the idea in question. But, secondly, if it is only necessary that a defini- 
tion should present so many characteristics of the object defined as will 
enable us to distinguished it from all others, then, in this sense, God 
can be defined. 

A definition of this great First Cause may be given thus : God is an 



126 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. r [Book II. 

Eternal, Independent, Immutable, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipres- 
ent, Just, Holy, and Infinitely Benevolent Spirit ; the Creator, Preserver, 
and Governor of all things. • 

Before we enter upon an examination of the arguments by which the 
Divine Existence is sustained, we may inquire, 

I. By what means is the Idea of God okiginated ? On this sub- 
ject the three following opinions have been advanced : 1. That the idea is 
innate ; 2. That it is the result of rational investigation ; and, 3. That it de- 
fends alone upon Divine Revelation. Let us examine each of these briefly. 

1. That the Idea is innate. — If the notion of a supreme First Cause 
were an innate idea, it would be as natural for man to believe that 
there is a God, as to believe in the existence of an external universe. 
Such an idea would have all the force of a self-evident proposi- 
tion, and could be doubted by no one possessing rationality. But 
how does this theory correspond with matters of fact? Is it not 
evidently inconsistent with the existence of atheism? I am aware 
some suppose that no man can be an atheist, but this is assum- 
ing what cannot be proved. That there are those who profess 
atheism, and who manifest all possible zeal in its propagation, no one 
will deny ; and, until we can claim the ability to discern the thoughts 
and purposes of the human heart, we have no right to call in question 
the truth of their profession or the sincerity of their zeal. 

The theory in question is also at war with the true philosophy of 
mind. The doctrine of innate ideas is a mere hypothesis, which no man 
has ever been able to prove ; but which is contradicted by all experience, 
and is, therefore, unworthy of our confidence. It is now generally ad- 
mitted that we gain all our ideas by the use of our natural faculties, 
sensation and reflection ; and if so, we have no reason to believe that 
our idea of God forms an exception tp the general rule. 

2. There seems to be a degree of plausibility in the opinion that men 
may acquire an idea of God by rational induction, or from the light of 
nature ; but however plausible this theory may at first sight appear to 
be, we will find, on further examination, that it is wholly untenable. 
It is true, nature is a volume of theological instruction to those who are 
capable of reading it. But, as a book may be stored with wholesome 
and important matter, and yet be of no benefit to the man who under- 
stands not the language in which it is written ; so the volume of nature 
may contain a thousand arguments in favor of the Divine existence, and 
yet men, for the want of a sufficient degree of moral instruction, may be 
unable in the slightest degree to feel their force or follow their tendency. 

To the Jew it is evident that " the heavens declare the glory of God," 
and that " the firmament showeth his handiwork." To the Christian 
philosopher it is equally evident that " the invisible things of him from 
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the 
things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead." And to 



Cliap. 1.] THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 127 

deists and heathen sages, who enjoy a light which they are either una- 
ble to trace to its proper source or unwilling to acknowledge, the voice 
of nature proclaims the existence of a supreme First Cause. 

These facts, however, have no direct bearing upon the present sub- 
ject. The question to be investigated is not, whether the light of 
nature sustains the proposition that there is a God, for of this there 
can hardly be a doubt ; but it is simply this : Is the light of nature suf- 
ficient of itself to lead men to the knowledge of God ? In other words, 
Can men who are entirely destitute of the idea of a God derive that idea 
from rational investigation ? Of the question as understood in this sense 
we feel disposed to take the negative, and in support of our position 
we offer the following arguments. 

(1.) The Opinion is not supported by a single matter of fact. — The 
history of ages does not afford a single instance in which any man, by 
a course of philosophic research, obtained the idea of God as an orig- 
inal discovery. On the other hand it is worthy of remark, that the 
wisest among heathen philosophers confessed themselves to be indebted to 
tradition for the ideas which they entertained upon this point ; and no 
one, in any age or country, has ever pretended to have arrived at an 
original idea of God by rational investigation. 

Had such a discovery ever been made by any man, there would most 
certainly have been preserved, in some way or other, a notice of so won- 
derful an event. This is true in regard to all the great discoveries of 
mankind in arts and science. Thus, the name of Copernicus is asso- 
ciated with the present system of astronomy. The name of JETervey is 
connected with the common theory of the circulation of the blood. 
Fidton stands at the head of steam power ; and the memory of Morse 
runs with lightning speed along every telegraphic wire. So it is with 
almost every important discovery. But nothing of this kind marks the 
discovery of a great First Cause ; and the only reason is, that such a 
discovery was never made by any human being. In every case, where 
a process of reasoning upon this subject has been instituted, it has been 
to corroborate the belief in the being of a God, and not to gain a knowl- 
edge of him as an original discovery. But, 

(2.) This Theory is incredible in itself because it is absurd and con- 
tradictory. 

To suppose that a man can commence a rational investigation of this 
kind without an idea of God, and as the result of his researches to 
arrive at such an idea, is to suppose that he will put forth an effort with- 
out any object in view. Or, which is the same thing, to inquire after 
an object of which he has no conception — a subject of which he has not 
the least idea. It is, in a word, to have an idea of an object and no 
idea at the same time ; and to suppose that of which he has no knowl- 
edge to be the subject of his thought and reasoning. 

How, then, is a man to come by the first idea of God, with regard to 



128 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. [Book II. 

whose existence he is to decide ? Were we to suppose human beings 
to be without such an idea, is it probable that they would ever institute 
an inquiry respecting him ? Or, if such an intention should somehow 
or other be formed by them, is it likely that they would be able to pros- 
ecute it ? No one who understands the philosophy of the human mind 
will answer these questions in the affirmative. Every one knows that 
it requires more intellectual strength and effort to discover an unknown 
truth than to comprehend it when fairly stated, or to see the force of the 
evidence on which it rests. But, 

(3.) The opinion supposes a degree of mental culture that never has 
existed, and never can exist, where there is no idea of a God / and, there- 
fore, the discovery is not probable. 

Man, without some degree of education, is wholly a creature of appe- 
tite. The gratification of his animal nature occupies all his thoughts, 
and he is therefore unqualified for rational investigation. If we suppose 
that God is at all discoverable by the light of nature, we must look to 
those whose civilization and intellectual culture have fitted the mind for 
the investigation of abstract and philosophic truth. For, to a people 
who have never heard of God, his existence must be a question of mere 
philosophy. 

But where is such a state of mental cultivation found ? Is it among 
those from whose mind the idea of God is entirely obliterated? To 
suppose this is to suppose that men can be raised from a state of bar- 
barism to one of civil and scientific cultivation without the influence of 
religion ; for no religious motives can exist where the foundation of all 
religion is unknown. It is to suppose that civil and scientific cultiva- 
tion can exist independent of moral control, without a sense of the 
principle of justice, without hope or fear in regard to another life. 

This is what never was. No civilized nation ever existed under such 
circumstances. It is utterly impossible to raise any body of men, by 
mere civil improvement, to that degree of mental cultivation which will 
fit them for philosophic research without the aid of religion in some 
form. Accordingly, wherever there has been a sufficient amount of 
mental improvement to prepare men for the investigation of moral and 
spiritual truth, there the idea of a great First Cause has been previously 
known and acknowledged. 

Under the influence of religion in one form or other, all states or civil 
communities, both ancient and modern, have been formed and main- 
tained. It has entered essentially into all their legislative and guberna- 
tive institutions. Even the atheists of Greece and Rome acknowledged 
the necessity of maintaining the public religion as the means of restrain- 
ing the multitude. We conclude, therefore, that where no idea of a 
Supreme Ruler or Creator has been suggested to the mind, either by 
instruction or tradition, it is not to be supposed that men could gain a 
knowledge of such a truth even in an imperfect form. 



Chap. 1.] THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 129 

We admit that to us, who enjoy the light of Divine instruction, the 
existence of God may appear to be exceedingly evident and easily 
demonstrated. Its rational evidence is so abundant, so easily collected, 
and so convincing, that we may hardly be able to see how any one can 
fail to discover it from the light of nature ; but all this does not prove 
that the human mind, unaided by any supernatural means, can make the 
discovery. 

If it were possible for the mind to institute an inquiry upon the prin- 
ciple of cause and effect, in order to arrive at a knowledge of the great 
First Cause, would it not be as likely to embrace the notion of an eter- 
nal succession of causes and effects as to believe in creation and an 
almighty Creator ? The philosophers of Greece and Rome, whether 
deistical, atheistical, or polytheistical, all agreed that matter is eternal ; 
and though they possessed a traditionary knowledge of God, yet they 
had no conception of the creation of the world out of nothing. Among 
them it was a settled point that matter is uncreated. 

Were we to admit that on the principle of induction some knowledge 
of the Creator might be gained by the most contemplative, by what 
means could they demonstrate to'themselves that the world had but one 
Creator ? This is an inquiry which the mere light of nature can never 
answer. But by means of revealed truth, philosophy is so aided in her 
operations that she can employ arguments which are strong and satis- 
factory, not only in opposition to the eternity of matter and an eternal 
succession of causes and effects, but in proof of the unity of the world's 
Creator. 

(4.) The question before us is one which cannot be settled by an 
appeal to facts, for the human family have never been in circumstances 
to render the experiment possible ; they have never been entirely desti- 
tute of a knowledge of God. If any one supposes that this knowledge 
is not coeval with man, or that the idea of God was first obtained by 
rational investigation, let him show, by some tangible proof, that his 
theory is true ; or if he cannot do this, let him confess that the idea of a 
God is as old as the race. 

It is worthy of remark, that neither Moses, the first of the inspired 
penmen, nor any of the writers of the succeeding canonical books, enter 
into any formal proof of this first principle of religion, the existence of a 
God. They all assume it as a well-known and commonly admitted fact. 
Nor is there in the sacred volume any allusion to atheistical sentiments 
till some ages after Moses. From this circumstance we learn that, 
previous to the time of Moses, the idea of one supreme and infinitely 
perfect God was familiar to men in general ; that it had descended to 
them from the earliest ages ; and also, that it was originally a truth of 
revelation, and not one which had been discovered by any of the sages 
of preceding times. 

The progenitor of our race was made in the image and likeness of 

9 



130 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. [Book II. 

God, and he must therefore have known him by sensible manifestations. 
It was as impossible for Adam not to know his Creator as to doubt his 
own existence. Equally clear demonstrations were made to Abel, to 
Noah, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to Moses. Thus, through a 
period of more than two thousand years, " God at sundry times and in 
divers manners " revealed himself to his servants. When Moses wrote 
there were persons still living who had conversed with those who had 
conversed with God, or who had descended from those to whom God 
had appeared in visible glory or in angelic forms. These Divine mani- 
festations were matters of public notoriety among the primitive families 
of mankind. From them the tradition was transmitted to their descend- 
ants ; and the idea, once communicated, was readily embraced as a 
necessary truth, and was confirmed by every natural object on which 
the eye could rest. 

It was thus that God was made known to the ancient world. 
Whether, therefore, such a discovery is within the reach of mere human 
reason, is a question which has never been determined by experiment ; 
because, as mankind have never been without this knowledge, they 
have never been in circumstances in wnich such an experiment could be 
made. There may have been some uncivilized tribes, such as the 
Kamtschatkadales of the north, and the Hottentots of southern Africa, 
among whom the idea of a Supreme Being has been nearly, if not 
entirely, obliterated ; but in no case among such tribes of men has the 
knowledge of God been recovered, except by the instruction of others. 
Hence, matter of fact stands opposed to the notion that God is dis- 
coverable by the unassisted faculties of man. 

From the whole of this reasoning we are conducted to the con- 
clusion, 

3. That we owe our knowledge of God, both in regard to his Exist- 
ence and his Attributes, to Divine Revelation. 

We do not mean that all who are destitute of a direct revelation 
must necessarily be without this knowledge, but that revelation is the 
primary source of all our knowledge of God, whether it comes to us 
directly, by means of inspired truth, or indirectly, by tradition or unin- 
spired instruction. 

But now, since God has so clearly revealed himself to man in the 
volume of Divine inspiration, rational evidence in support of his exist- 
ence is both copious and irresistible, so much so that atheism has 
never been able to make much progress where this revelation has been 
preserved. " Tell men," says Ellis, " that there is a God, and their 
mind embraces it as a necessary truth; unfold his attributes, and they 
will see the explanation of them in his works." 

Let us then proceed to consider, 

II. Some rational arguments in support op the Bible doctrine, 

THAT THERE IS " ONE LlVING AND TRUE GOD." 



Chap. 1.] THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 131 

Theologians have employed two modes of argumentation in demon- 
strating the Divine existence. One is, to argue from cause to effect, 
and is called the argument a priori. The other is, to argue from effect 
to cause, and is called the argument a posteriori. The latter is the 
only mode on which any dependence can be placed, and its demonstra- 
tions are too strong to need a doubtful auxiliary. 

Logicians have distributed causes into Efficient, Material, Formal, 
and Final. An efficient cause is the agent that produces an effect; a 
material cause is the subject on which the agent acts; & formal cause is 
the effect produced by the agent; and a final cause is the end for which 
a thing is done. 

It is according to the common sense, and the common observation 
and experience of mankind, that the connection between efficient causes 
and their effects is a necessary connection, since without the operation 
of the cause the effect never takes place. It is, therefore, an axiom in 
philosophy, that for every effect there must be an adequate cause ; that 
nothing exists or comes to pass without a cause. This fact being estab- 
lished, we may proceed to the arguments which are founded upon it in 
proof of the Divine existence. This may be argued, 

1. From the common consent of mankind. 

It is a generally admitted fact that all the nations of the earth have 
acknowledged, in one form or other, the being of a God ; in proof of 
which we need only appeal to the history of the human race. 

To this it is objected, that some nations or tribes of men have been 
found who had no idea of a Supreme Being. But our answer is, first, 
that the objection is based upon insufficient grounds ; for, though the 
allegation has been made in regard to certain tribes, it has been, at 
least in some cases, by persons who were ignorant of their language, 
customs, and opinions ; and, consequently, a more intimate knowledge 
of them has demonstrated that the account was a hasty and unjust 
assumption. But, secondly, were we to grant that there are tribes of 
human beings who are so far brutified as to be entirely destitute of all 
religious knowledge, still our argument would not be greatly impaired ; 
for this would no more prove that men do not commonly consent to 
the being of a God, than the actual blindness of some would prove that 
sight is not common to the race. 

It may be objected further, that mankind have not agreed in the 
belief of one God, but of many ; and that, with the exception of the 
Jews, polytheism was the system of all nations in ancient times, as it 
still is where neither Christianity nor Mohammedanism has been intro- 
duced. But to object to our argument on account of the errors of 
Paganism, is as unreasonable as to deny the existence of a true coin 
because it has been extensively counterfeited. It is true, men have held 
very different notions in regard to the number and character of the 
objects of their worship. Some have maintained the doctrine of one 



132 THE EXISTENCE OE GOD. [Book II. 

Supreme Being, while others have swelled the number of their gods to 
thousands; but in all that mass of inconsistency, contradiction, and 
absurdity which characterizes the idolatrous worship of pagan nations, 
there is a harmony on one point : they all agree that the universe is 
under Divine control. 

When we see that distant nations of men, separated by mountains 
and oceans, by burning sands and drifting snows, holding no inter- 
course with one another for ages, and differing widely in their lan- 
guage, manners, customs, and modes of thinking, all testify with 
united voice their belief in a Divine and superintending Power, we 
are constrained to inquire, How is this harmony of sentiment to be 
accounted for? 

The atheists of the school of Epicurus attempted to account for this 
general belief by the principle of fear ; but this is evidently to put the 
effect before the cause. Other men would have supposed that fear 
proceeded from the previous belief of a power or powers superior to 
mortals, and able to injure them. But in this case it is supposed that 
men began to be afraid of something, they knew not what ; and think- 
ing this to be very unreasonable, as it doubtless was, they set about 
finding out an adequate cause of their fear, and luckily lighted upon 
the idea of gods — terrible beings, whom it was hazardous to offend. 
We need say nothing more about this theory, as it clearly refutes 
itself. 

Others account for this general belief by ascribing it to the artifice 
of statesmen, who contrived in this manner to give greater authority 
to their laws, and to retain men in subjection by the sanctions of relig- 
ion. But this notion is altogether destitute of proof. Who was the 
first legislator that propagated the story of the existence of the gods f 
How did he succeed in persuading a whole people to give credit to a 
dogma of which they had no evidence but his affirmation, and of which 
they had never before heard a whisper? If one legislator was the 
inventor of it, how did it spread so rapidly over the whole earth? 
Did all the princes and statesmen of the world assemble in congress, 
agree upon this expedient for maintaining their authority, and then 
return to their respective countries to put it in practice ? And how 
did it happen that they became the dupes of their own stratagem,' and 
believed in the gods as firmly as their subjects ? 

We have now seen that this almost universal agreement of men with 
regard to the Divine existence is a fact which cannot be set aside ; that 
the theories which are commonly adopted to account for this fact are 
insufficient and absurd ; and, consequently, that the real cause of this 
wide-spread effect is still to be ascertained. The only rational ground 
on which we can account for this general agreement is that of tradition, 
to admit that all nations originally had a common origin, and that, 
previous to their dispersion, they were in possession of a system of 



Chap. 1.] THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 133 

religious doctrine and worship which, in all their long-continued and 
extensive wanderings, they have never entirely forgotten. But then 
we must also account for the origin of this tradition. Whence origin- 
ally came this religious knowledge? this idea of a God? this belief 
in a superior and superintending Providence ? We have only to admit 
that God originally made a revelation of himself to man, and at once 
we solve the problem. But if we deny this, we may wander in uncer- 
tainty and conjecture forever. This view of the subject must, therefore, 
be acknowledged to furnish an argument of some weight in proof of 
the existence of God. But this doctrine may be argued, 

2. From our own actual existence, and that of other things around us. 

Every man knows with absolute certainty that he himself and other 
beings exist. But since beings now exist, either there was a time when 
all beings began to exist, or otherwise some being must have existed 
from all eternity. If there was a time when all beings began to exist, 
until that time there was nothing ; and it will hence follow, that the 
first being must have started up out of nothing and caused itself to be. 
If this is too absurd to be admitted, we must believe that a Being has 
existed from all eternity. Hence, the existence of an eternal Being, 
the cause of all other beings, is as certain as that anything now exists. 

It is also evident that some being has always existed of itself, with- 
out any cause; for either all being was caused or some being was 
uncaused. But if all being was caused, then some one at least was 
the cause of itself, which is a contradiction. 

It is further evident that some being must be independent upon any 
other being. To say that all being is dependent, is to say that it 
depends on nothing ; for there is nothing beyond the compass of being 
on which it may depend. A being that never depended on any other 
as a producing cause cannot depend on any other as a sustaining or 
conserving cause. 

It consequently follows that such a being exists necessarily. An 
uncaused being cannot be dependent upon its own choice, nor upon 
the choice of any other being, for its existence; and, therefore, its 
existence is not owing to choice at all, but to the necessity of its own 
nature. To such a being it is impossible ever not to have been or ever 
to cease from being. 

We may now advance another step, and add, that this eternal, 
uncaused, independent, and necessary Being is self-active. Such a 
Being must be either self-active or entirely inactive ; for it is absurd to 
say that an independent being can derive its activity from another. If 
we suppose it to be inactive, we fall into the inconsistency of ascribing 
attributes of the most inconceivable excellency and dignity to a being 
as good as nothing; for there is but little difference between being 
nothing and doing nothing. But if, in order to account for the present 
existence of things, we must allow the existence of an eternal uncaused 



134 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. [Book II. 

Being, the efficient cause of all other beings, as has been shown, we 
must, on the very same principle, allow that this eternal Being is self- 
active ; for an inactive efficient cause is a contradiction. That which 
can do nothing can no more be the producing cause of other beings 
than that which is nothing. It is therefore evident that there is a 
necessary, self-active Being, the cause and author of all created 
beings. 

And hence, since we can form no notion of life which self-active 
power does not comprehend, we must consequently allow that this 
Being is also originally vital, having life in and of itself; and being the 
root of all vitality, whence life is propagated to every living creature. 

We argue the existence of God, 

3. From the evidences of design in the works of creation. 

As the dependence of all things around us proves that they must have 
originated from an independent Cause, and as their actual existence 
proves his power, so every object in nature affords undeniable proof 
that the world, and all things therein, are the effects of an intelligent 
and designing Cause. For, as nothing can be produced without 
a cause, so no cause can work above or beyond its own capacity. 
Whatever, therefore, is ascribed to any cause above and beyond its 
ability, is ascribed to no cause at all. If it then follows that when an 
effect is produced it has a cause, why does it not equally follow, when 
an effect is produced, having manifest characters of wisdom and design 
upon it, that it has a wise and designing Cause. 

It may be said that there are some productions which look like the 
effects of wisdom and contrivance, but which are not ; as the nests of 
birds, the comb of bees, and the web of the spider. But who can 
demonstrate that these creatures are incapable of design ? And if even 
that could be done, it would not prove that there is not a universal de- 
signing Cause, from whose directive and operative influence no imagin- 
able effect or event can be exempted. It is no more necessary that a 
creature which steadily works toward an end should itself design and 
know that end, than that the tools of a mechanic should know what he 
is doing with them ; but if they do not, it is plain that he must. 

There are thousands of things produced by man which every one at 
first sight would pronounce to be the effects of skill, and not of chance. 
. But if men will soberly consider the characters or footsteps of wisdom 
and design which are everywhere manifest in what are called the works 
of nature, they will be constrained to acknowledge that these works are 
the effects of an almighty and designing Cause. Indeed, universal 
nature, as it is seen in the variety, order, beauty, and wonderful con- 
trivance of things, and in their adaptation to their proper and respective 
ends, is only the exercise of that almighty power which is everywhere 
active in the world, in conjunction with that infinite wisdom which 
directs and governs all its operations. If, therefore, the marks of design 



Chap. 1.] THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 135 

in works of art are proofs of a designing cause, the same must be true 
in regard to the works of nature. 

"We will suppose that one who had never seen a watch, or anything 
of the kind, has now, for the first time, this little engine offered to his 
view. Is it not almost certain that he would, upon the mere sight of its 
figure, structure, and curious workmanship, at once acknowledge the arti- 
ficer's hand? And if he were also made acquainted with the object for 
which it was constructed, and with the manner in which all its parts con- 
tribute to the exact measurement of time, would he not most assuredly 
both confess and admire the ingenuity of the inventor ? 

But now suppose that a bystander, beholding him in his admiration, and 
undertaking to show a profounder knowledge, should say, Sir, you are 
mistaken concerning the composition of this watch. It was neither 
designed by the skill, nor made by the hand of any one. It had its 
origin from innumerable little atoms, which were busily frisking and 
playing to and fro about the place of its nativity ; and which, 
according to the laws of matter and motion, formed themselves into this 
little fabric. Some of those busy particles agreed to form one wheel, and 
others another, in that order and with those proportions which you see. 
Others of them formed the figures upon the dial plate, and also those little 
moving fingers which point out the hours of the day and the days of the 
month ; and thus all its parts were so happily arranged as to secure its 
regular motion. Who could be made to believe this piece of natural 
history ? Should any one give this account of the production of a watch 
we would conclude that he was either jesting or insane. 

The mechanism of the watch being once understood, the inference is 
irresistible that it must have had a maker who both comprehended its 
construction and designed its use. Xor would it weaken our conclusion 
that we had never witnessed the making of a watch, or known an artist 
capable of making one ; or that we ourselves could neither execute such 
a work nor understand the manner in which it was performed. All this 
is true of some exquisite remains of ancient art, and to most men of the 
more curious productions of modern manufacture. Ignorance of this 
kind may lead to a more exalted opinion of the skill of the artist ; but 
it cannot raise a single doubt in regard to his existence and agency. 

But if the argument from design is so convincing when based upon a 
mere work of art, it ought to be much more so when transferred to the 
works of nature. In an infinite number of instances ends more singu- 
lar are there proposed, and are accomplished by contrivances which 
demonstrate the existence, not only of intelligence, but of intelligence of 
an infinitely superior order. 

The field of illustration into which this argument leads us is quite 
too extensive to be explored in a work like this. The entire universe, 
from the smallest portion of organized matter up to man, and from man 
to the immense spheres that roll in boundless space, is full of examples 



136 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. [Book II. 

of wise design. We must, however, confine ourselves to a few par- 
ticulars. 

(1.) Let us suppose that in some part of the air near this earth, and 
within such limits as would allow the whole scene to be conveniently 
viewed, there should suddenly appear a little globe of light resembling 
that of the sun ; and suppose it to be fixed as a center to another body, 
which we could plainly perceive to be a proportionably little earth, 
beautified with trees and woods, with flowery fields and flowing streams, 
and with lakes and seas into which these streams discharged themselves ; 
and suppose there were other planets, all proportioned to the narrow 
limits assigned them, placed at their due distances, and playing about 
the supposed. sun so as to measure their days, and months, and years; 
would we not with readiness and amazement confess that the contriver 
and maker of such a system must possess intelligence far above that of 
any mortal? And have we not in the present frame of nature a 
demonstration of wisdom and counsel as far exceeding that which we 
have now supposed, as the contrivance and execution of something that 
is of universal benefit to man is greater than the making of the most 
insignificant toy ? 

(2.) We may ask those who know anything about the composition of 
the human body, whether there is not as much evidence of contrivance 
in that wonderful structure as there is in the most admired productions 
of human skill ? Who can think for a moment that the eye was not 
intended to serve as the organ of vision ? Let us compare it, for exam- 
ple, with a telescope. As far as we can examine there is precisely 
the same proof that the eye was made for vision as there is that the 
telescope was made to assist it. They are constructed upon the same 
principles, both being adjusted to the laws by which the transmission 
and refraction of the rays of light are regulated. 

Some may think that there is no similitude between the eye and the 
telescope, because the former is a perceiving organ, while the latter is 
only an unperceiving instrument. The fact is, however, that they are 
both instruments ; and, so far as their mechanism is concerned, this 
circumstance does not destroy their analogy. It is well known that in 
order to distinct vision an image of the object must be formed at the 
bottom of the eye. How this image is connected with the sensation we 
may not be able to explain, nor is the present question concerned with 
that inquiry. But the formation of such an image being necessary to 
the sense of sight, how is it produced ? We answer, by means which 
correspond exactly with those employed in the telescope, but which 
exhibit infinitely more art. So far as it regards the production of this 
image, the eye and the telescope are therefore instruments of the same 
kind. The lenses of the telescope and the humors of the eye bear a 
complete resemblance to one another in their figure, their position, and 
their power over the rays of light. They bring each pencil to a point 



Chap. 1.] THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 137 

at the proper distance from the lens, and in the eye at the exact place 
where the retina is prepared to receive it. How, then, is it possible, 
under such circumstances, to exclude contrivance from one, while we so 
readily acknowledge it in the other ? 

We may now turn our attention to that bony column called the spine. 
It is composed of twenty-four bones of very wonderful construction, 
and is evidently intended to perform various, difficult, and almost incon- 
sistent offices. 

It is necessary, in the first place, that it should possess both firmness 
and flexibility : firmness, to support the body in an erect position; and 
flexibility, to allow the trunk to bend in all degrees of curvature. 
Accordingly, the breadth of the bases upon which the parts severally 
rest, and the closeness of their junction, give to the chain its firmness and 
stability ; while the number of its parts, and the consequent frequency 
of its joints, impart to it flexibility. This flexibility varies in different 
parts of the column. It is least in the back, where strength more than 
flexure is wanted ; greater in the loins, where greater flexure is required ; 
and greatest of all in the neck, for the free motions of the head. 

This column is intended, secondly, to form a safe passage for the spinal 
marrow. To this end there is a hole in the middle of each vertebra, 
and when the several bones are put together they form a close and unin- 
terrupted channel. The vertebrae, by means of their processes and 
projections, and the articulations which some of these form with one 
another at their extremities, are so locked in and confined as to prevent 
them from shifting out of their proper position when the body is moved 
or twisted; and thus, as the relative position of these bones remains 
nearly unaltered, th^ line of the canal for the spinal marrow is preserved 
unbroken. 

To prevent the joints from gaping externally when the body is bent 
forward they are supplied with intervening cartilages, whose yielding 
nature admits all the motion that is necessary without producing any 
chasm by a separation of the parts. The spine's being composed of so 
many bones contributes also to the end in view. Had it consisted of 
only three or four, the bending of the body must have bruised the spi- 
nal marrow at every angle ; but now, though we bend our back to 
almost every degree of inclination, the motion of each vertebra is very 
small. 

But, thirdly, the spine affords convenient holes or openings, through 
which a supply of nerves is sent out from the medullary canal to differ- 
ent parts of the body ; and, fourthly, it forms a basis for the insertion 
of muscles, and a support for the ends of the ribs. But we will decline 
a further consideration of particular parts of the body, and turn our 
attention, 

(3.) To some of its principal functions. Let us begin with that of 
growth. Men have invented and constructed many curious and complex 



138 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. [Book II. 

machines ; but who ever made one that could grow, or that had in it a 
self-improving power ? This is infinitely beyond the ingenuity and 
ability of man. 

Who that has reason enough to be serious is not amazed at the 
miracle of nutrition f The body is constantly throwing off particles of 
matter which once entered into its composition, and is therefore subject 
to perpetual waste ; but is as constantly receiving a gradual supply and 
renovation, by which it continues in the same state. It is easy to frame 
a work of art that shall gradually decay ; but who can compose a thing 
that, like our bodies, shall be continually melting away, and yet be con- 
tinually repaired for so many years? Nay, who can tell how this 
reparation is effected ? We know how food is received, concocted, and 
separated ; how so much as must serve for nourishment is turned into 
chyle, and that into blood ; how this blood is distributed to all parts of 
the body for the purpose of nutrition ; but how it loses its own nature, 
and assumes that of the different living tissues, to repair their losses 
and support their strength, is beyond our comprehension. 

And what shall we say of spontaneous motion, with which we and 
other animals are endowed ? We know that we have power to move 
ourselves, or to stop our own motion at pleasure ; but how far have all 
attempted imitations of animated nature fallen short of this perfection ? 
How much more excellent a thing is the smallest insect than the most 
admired machine of which we ever heard? And is it no proof of a 
wise and designing Creator that there are innumerable living crea- 
tures which, with the greatest facility, can move themselves at their 
own pleasure, in every possible direction, and with every variety of 
motion ? This, surely, cannot be the work of blind fate or chance. 

(4.) We will close this argument by adverting to the nature and 
powers of the human soul. Men know that they can think, under- 
stand, and frame notions of things ; that they have a consciousness of 
all that passes in their own mind ; that they can apprehend the future 
existence of what now is not, and the future appearance of that which 
is now invisible ; that they have a power to compare things with one 
another, and to judge of their agreement or disagreement ; and that they 
can infer one thing from another, so as from one plain principle to 
draw out a long chain of logical consequences. They know, too, that 
they are endowed with a power of choice which we call the will, a 
faculty which is freely exercised in deciding among different objects 
which shall be pursued. 

But there is another and a still higher view to be taken of the human 
soul., We have considered it only in relation to its intellectual endow- 
ments, but it is also to be regarded as a moral being. Every man is 
conscious of moral perception. He finds a law within his own bosom 
by which he judges his feelings, his actions, and his whole moral charac- 
ter. This law commands his obedience so imperatively that he is com- 



Chap. 2.] ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 139 

pelled to regard it as the standard to which his conduct must be 
brought, and by which it must be tried, independent of human opinions ; 
and he acquits or condemns himself, according to this law, as if he stood 
before a judicial tribunal. But to acknowledge this law is to acknowl- 
edge at the same time that there is an invisible Lawgiver and Judge, 
who annexes rewards to what is morally good, and punishment to what 
is morally evil. In this way man comes to the knowledge of a moral 
order of things to which he himself is conscious of belonging, and 
from which he cannot but infer the existence of a moral Cause, on which 
this order depends. 

If, then, the human soul is a caused being, and consequently had a 
beginning, and if it is furnished with such wonderful powers and facul- 
ties, how came it into existence ? To this question no rational answer 
can be given, but that it owes its being to an intelligent and moral 
Cause. 

Instances of design and wonderful contrivance are as numerous as 
there are organized bodies in nature and relations between bodies not 
organized. The subject is, therefore, inexhaustible, but the cases which 
have been stated are sufficient for the illustration of this species of 
argument. 

Nothing that is contrived can, in a strict and proper sense, be eter- 
nal, because the contriver must have existed before the contrivance. 
Hence it follows, after all the schemes and struggles of a reluctant phi- 
losophy, that the necessary resort is a Deity. The marks of design, 
which are everywhere to be seen, are too strong to be disregarded. 
Design must have had a designer, and that designer is God. 



CHAPTER II. 

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.* 



Having established, as we believe, the doctrine of the existence of God, 
we will proceed, in the next place, to a consideration of the Attributes 
or Perfections which are ascribed to him in the sacred Scriptures. We 
do not presume to enumerate all the perfections of Jehovah, or to give 
a full and adequate idea of any one of them. Our notions of Him who 
is infinite and eternal are very limited and obscure, and must be so 

* The Attributes of God are so denominated because God attributes them to himself. 
They are called Perfections, because they are essential qualities of an infinitely perfect 
Being. They are also called Properties, because we conceive them to be proper to God, 
as distinguishing him from every other being. 



140 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

from our mental imbecility. " Canst thou by searching find out God ? 
canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as 
heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou 
know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader 
than the sea." Job xi, 7-9. 

Divines have sometimes divided the Attributes of God into different 
classes. Thus they have been considered as Absolute or Relative; 
Positive or Negative ; Natural or Moral ; and Communicable or Incom- 
municable. But these divisions we consider unnecessary, and will, 
therefore, adopt no such classification, but will consider the Divine 
Perfections in that order which seems to us most natural. Those com- 
monly enumerated are the following: Unity, Spirituality, Eternity, 
Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Immutability, Wisdom, 
Truth, Justice, Holiness, and Goodness. 



§ I. The Unity of God. 

The proper scriptural notion of the Unity of God may be thus pre- 
sented. A thing may be one by virtue of composition, as a watch, a 
house ; but God is one uncompounded and purely simple being. A 
thing may be one of a class or kind, as a man, an angel ; but God is so 
one that there is no other being of the same kind. A thing may be the 
only one of the kind, as the sun, the moon ; yet there might have been 
more if the Creator had so willed it. But God is so one that there 
cannot be another. In proof of the Unity of God we may appeal, 

1. To the Holy Scriptures. — Their testimony upon this subject is 
express and unequivocal. "The Lord our God is one Lord." Deut. 
vi, 4. "Thou art God alone." Psa. lxxxvi, 10. "I am God, and 
there is none else." Isa. xlv, 22. "To us there is but one God." 
1 Cor. viii, 6. Nor is this stated in the Scriptures merely to exclude 
all other creators, governors, or deities in connection with this system 
of created things which we behold; but absolutely, so as to exclude 
the idea of the existence, anywhere, of more than one Divine 
nature. 

The scriptural argument in proof of this important doctrine is short 
and simple. "We have undoubted evidence of a revelation from the 
Maker and Governor of the world. Granting him to be wise and good, 
it is impossible that he should declare what is not true. His own 
testimony assigns him exclusive deity ; and if we admit the authority 
of the Scriptures, we must admit also that there is only one God. 
But this doctrine may be supported, 

2. By rational Arguments. — These are either metaphysical^ or 
such as are drawn from the contemplation of nature. 

(1.) The arguments of a metaphysical character are based upon the 
nature of the Divine Being. The idea of God is appropriated to an 



Chap. 2, §1.] UNITY. 141 

individual, and does not admit of application to more than one. There 
cannot be any thing above God, or equal to him, or which is not 
dependent upon him. He is not only the first and the best, but the 
greatest of beings ; and, consequently, he stands alone in the universe. 
What do we mean by the term God but a being who is infinitely and 
absolutely perfect ? The idea of two equal gods is therefore a chimera. 
There may be more kings than one, because royalty only implies that 
each is vested with sovereign authority in his own dominions; but 
there cannot be a plurality of gods, because, from the nature of things, 
only one can be possessed of all possible perfections. 

If two or more independent beings are supposed to exist, their 
natures must be the same or different. If different, they are either 
contrary or various. If contrary, each must destroy the operations of 
the other ; and if various, one must have what the other has not ; and 
so neither of them can have all possible perfection. But if they are the 
same, having equal perfections, neither of them can be absolutely per- 
fect, because it is not so great to have equal perfections with another 
as to be superior to all other beings. It is, therefore, impossible that 
there can be more than one absolutely perfect being ; and if God is 
infinitely perfect, his unity must be admitted as a necessary con- 
sequence. 

(2.) But proofs of the Unity of God are to be drawn from his 
works, as well as from his nature. The frame and constitution of the 
world present to us a harmony, an order, and a uniformity of plan 
which show that their Creator and Preserver is one. We see evi- 
dences of but one will and one intelligence / and, therefore, there is but 
one God. 

The universe itself is a system, the parts of which are united 
together by one common bond, and governed by the same common 
laws. One law of gravitation causes a stone to drop toward the earth, 
the moon to move round it, and all the different planets to revolve 
round the sun ; and it is highly probable that the same attracting influ- 
ence, acting according to the same rule, reaches to the fixed stars. 
The planets are all subject to the same vicissitudes of days, and nights, 
and seasons. They all, at least Jupiter, Mars, and Venus, have the 
same advantages from their atmospheres as we have. The same ele- 
ment of light reaches every planet and every fixed star ; and in all 
cases, from whatever source it emanates, it affects our eyes in the same 
manner, moves with the same velocity, and is refracted and reflected 
according to the same laws. 

In our own globe the case is still clearer; for the same order of 
things attends us wherever we go. We never meet with modes of 
existence so totally different as to indicate that we are in the province 
of a different creator, or under the direction of a different will. The 
elements act upon one another, the tides rise and fall, and the magnetic 



142 THE ATTKIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

needle elects its position in every part alike. One atmosphere invests 
all parts of the globe ; one sun illuminates ; one moon exerts its specific 
attraction upon all parts. If there be a variety in natural effects, as, 
for example, in the tides of different seas, that very variety is the result 
of the same cause, acting under different circumstances. 

By the inspection and comparison of living forms we might add to 
this argument examples without number. Of all large terrestrial ani- 
mals, the structure, the senses, and the natural functions are nearly 
alike. Digestion, nutrition, and circulation go on in a similar manner 
in all; and the great circulating fluid, the blood, is in all the same. 
The resemblance between quadrupeds and birds is somewhat less, yet 
sufficiently evident ; for they are alike in five respects for one in which 
they differ, and their differences are such only as their different circum- 
stances require. 

If a perfectly regular and uniform administration of government in a 
commonwealth proves the unity of the governing power, will not that 
uniformity which is everywhere observable in the laws and operations 
of nature prove that its Maker and Governor is one? The only 
rational conclusion from all these sources of evidence is, therefore, that 
" the Lord our God is one." 

§ 2. The Spirituality of God. 

By the Spirituality of God is generally understood his immateriality; 
but, as Dr. Paley very justly remarks, the term expresses an idea which 
is made up of both a negative and a positive part. The negative part 
consists in the exclusion of the common properties of matter, such as 
solidity, inertia, divisibility, and gravitation. The positive part com- 
prises perception, thought, will, power, and action, or the origination of 
motion. 

The terms spirit and matter denote substances which are perfectly 
distinct in kind, and are manifested by properties which are not only 
distinct, but in many respects opposite and incommunicable. The 
former can perceive, think, reason, will, and act; while the latter is 
passive, impercipient, divisible, and corruptible. Under these views, 
and in this popular language, God is characterized in the Scriptures. , 
He is a Spirit, not body ; Mind, not matter. He is a pure Spirit, uncon- 
nected even with bodily form or organs ; " the invisible God whom no 
man hath seen or can see ;" an immaterial, incorruptible, and impassi- 
ble substance, wholly above the perception of bodily sense. He is free 
from the imperfections of matter, and all the infirmities of corporeal 
beings; a self-acting, self-moving, and Infinite Mind. He is more 
excellent than created spirits, because he is their Creator, and is there- 
fore styled " the Father of Spirits," and " the God of the spirits of all 
flesh." 



Chap. 2, § 2.] SPIRITUALITY. 143 

The immateriality of God is a point of great importance, not only as 
it affects our views of his nature and attributes, but because, when once 
it is established that there exists a pure Spirit, living and intelligent, 
and invested with moral properties, the question of the immateriality of 
the human soul may be regarded as almost settled. 

The spirituality and, consequently, the immateriality of God may 
be argued, 

1. From the express testimony of Scripture. 

Thus, "God is a Spirit." John iv, 24. "Now the Lord is that 
Spirit." 2 Cor. iii, 17. The same truth is substantially taught in those 
numerous passages which speak of the " Spirit of God," for the 
" Spirit " is God himself. But we may argue this doctrine, 

2. From: our idea op God as an absolutely perfect Being. 

Our first and most natural idea of God is that he possesses all possi- 
ble perfection. Accordingly, when any property is ascribed to him 
we are led to inquire, in the first place, whether it is a perfection or an 
imperfection. If the former, it belongs to him ; but if the latter, it is to 
be separated from him, as being incompatible with his absolute per- 
fection. 

It will hardly be denied that spiritual substances are more excellent 
than such as are merely material, that the human soul is more excellent 
than the spiritual nature of the lower animals, and that angels are more 
excellent than men. But God must have an excellency above all these, 
and must, therefore, be infinitely removed, not only from the condition 
of the most refined corporeal substance, but also from that of the high- 
est angelic nature. Hence we are led, by this mode of reasoning, 
to the attribution of pure spirituality to God. The same result 
follows, 

3. From the Intelligence of God. 

If we allow a First Cause at all, we must allow that cause to be 
intelligent, as we have already shown ; but intelligence is not a property 
of matter. We know that every unorganized portion of it, at least, is 
wholly unintelligent. Its essential properties are impenetrability, divisi- 
bility, passiveness, and gravity. In all its forms and mutations, from 
the granite rock to the yielding atmosphere and the rapid lightning, 
these properties are discovered; and though they take an infinite 
variety of accidental modes, they never give the least indication of 
intelligence. 

If, then, intelligence be a property of matter at all, it must be an 
accidental property and not an essential one, because vast masses of 
matter exist without it. As it cannot, therefore, be an essential prop- 
erty of matter, if we suppose God to be a material being we may sup- 
pose, with equal propriety, that he is wholly unintelligent. For, take 
away any property from a subject which is not essential to it and its 
essence still remains ; and if intelligence, which in this view is only an 



144 THE ATTEIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

accident of deity, were annihilated, a God without perception, thought, 
or knowledge might still remain. A conclusion so monstrous shows, 
that if a God be at all allowed the absolute spirituality of his nature 
must follow ; for if intelligence is an essential attribute of deity, as all 
must admit, then that substance to which it is essential cannot be 
material. 

Two objections have been urged against the doctrine of the pure 
spirituality of God. The first is, that the Scriptures ascribe to him 
material parts or members, such as belong to the human body. This, 
however, is simply an accommodation to our modes of thinking, and 
is designed to assist the weakness of our comprehension in regard to 
the Divine attributes by directing our attention to correspondent 
properties in ourselves. When, therefore, any bodily member is 
ascribed to God it must be taken in a figurative sense. By his eyes and 
ears we are to understand his infinite knowledge ; by his face, the 
manifestation of Ms favor; by his mouth, the revelation of his will; 
by his bowels, the tenderness of his compassion; and by his hand, his 
almighty power. 

The seco?id objection is based upon those Scriptures which speak of 
God as the object of vision. There are, indeed, many passages of this 
kind ; in some of which it is declared that God has been seen by men, 
and in others, that they shall see him in a future life. But there are a 
few facts, in the light of which all such Scriptures may be easily recon- 
ciled with the spirituality of God. The first is, that in the economy of 
redeeming grace God renders himself visible to man in the person of 
Jesus Christ. It is on this principle that the apostle calls him " the 
image of the invisible God;" and that our Saviour himself declares, 
" He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." But we are to remem- 
ber, that even under the Old Testament dispensation Christ sometimes 
appeared in human form, prelusive of his subsequent incarnation. By 
this means Abraham saw Jehovah, and conversed with him on the 
plains of Mamre. In like manner Jacob saw God " face to face," and 
wrestled with him ; and in the person of this Redeemer Job expected 
to see God in the world to come. 

The second fact to be noticed is, that God has often revealed himself 
to men by some visible symbol, or glorious appearance, indicative of his 
special presence. It was in this way that Moses saw him in the burn- 
ing bush, and that he and all Israel beheld him when, amid the terrible 
displays of majesty and glory, he revealed his law from the burning 
summit of Mount Sinai. Thus, too, God accompanied his chosen people 
in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night ; and when 
they made him a sanctuary, that he might dwell among them, he took 
possession of it in a visible form, which was called " the glory of the 
Lord." 

There is, therefore, a distinction to be made between the essential 



Chap. 2, § 3.] ETERNITY. 145 

presence of God and what may be called his majestic presence. The 
former regards the Divine essence, which, in the most absolute sense, is 
present everywhere, but which is everywhere invisible ; while the latter 
denotes merely a visible indication of the presence of God in some par- 
ticular place. This we know has been accommodated to the perception 
even of mortal eyes. 

But a third fact, which will aid us in the true interpretation of this 
class of Scriptures, is, that the phrase " to see God " is often employed 
in a merely figurative sense, and means nothing more than to know 
him or to enjoy him. Thus, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they 
<&all see God." Matt, v, 8. 

§ 3. The Eternity of God. 

When this attribute is ascribed to God the meaning is that to his 
existence there was no beginning and there will be no end. As all 
things were made by him he was before all things, and, consequently, 
there was a time when he existed alone ; but there never was a time 
when he did not exist. And as his existence is not contingent, but 
necessary, it is impossible that he ever should cease to exist. He is, 
therefore, eminently Being ; according to his own peculiar appellation, 
" I am," self-existent and eternal. 

This docteine is cleaelt asseeted in the Sceiptuees. — "From 
everlasting to everlasting thou art God." Psalm xc, 2. "Of old hast 
thou laid the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are the work of 
thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure ; yea, all of them 
shall wax old like a garment ; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and 
they shall be changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years shall have 
no end." Psalm cii, 25-27. He fills and occupies the whole round of 
boundless duration, and is " the first and the last." 

In these representations of God's eternity something more than the 
mere idea of infinite duration is conveyed. Even a created being may 
be the subject of endless duration in as strict a sense as God himself; 
but as its existence is derived from the Creator, it is dependent upon 
him, and must continue so forever. But the language in which the 
Scriptures speak of the eternity of God suggests a meaning deeper than 
that of mere duration. They contrast the stability of the Divine exist- 
ence with the changing nature of all his works ; representing them as 
reposing on him for support, while he lives by virtue of his own nature, 
and is essentially unchangeable. 

It is taught by some that the idea of successive time is not to be 
allowed in our conceptions of the duration of God / that as he fills all 
space with his immensity, so he fills all duration with his eternity ; and 
that with him eternity is nunc stans, a permanent now, incapable of the 
relations of past, present, and future. Such, however, is not the doc- 

10 



146 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

trine of the Scriptures on this mysterious subject ; and if it should be 
said that they are accommodated to the infirmity of the great body of 
mankind, we may reply that philosophy, with all its boasting of supe- 
rior light, has not conducted us a single step beyond the light of rev- 
elation ; but, in attempting to do so, it has obscured the conceptions of 
its disciples. "Filling duration with his eternity" is a phrase without 
meaning. How can any man conceive a permanent instant which coex- 
ists with a perpetually flowing duration ? One might as easily compre- 
hend a mathematical point coextended with a line, or with all dimen- 
sions. 

Whether we gain our idea of time from the motion of bodies without 
us, or from our own consciousness, or from both, we must conceive it 
to be divisible. Its artificial divisions are years, months, days, hours, 
minutes, and seconds. That duration is something distinct from these 
artificial measures is not denied ; and yet of this every man is con- 
scious that he can form no idea of duration but in this successive 
manner. 

We are told that the duration of God is a fixed eternal now, from 
which all ideas of succession are to be excluded ; and we are required 
to conceive of eternal duration without any reference to past or future 
time. But the proper abstract idea of duration is, simply continuance 
of being, without any reference to the exact degree or extent of it. It 
may be finite or infinite, momentary or eternal ; but that depends upon 
the substance of which it is the attribute, and not upon its own 
nature. 

Duration, then, as applied to God, is no more than an extension of the 
idea as applied to ourselves ; and to exhort us to conceive of it as some- 
thing essentially different, is to require us to conceive what is incon- 
ceivable, or to think without ideas. It follows, therefore, that we must 
either apply the term duration to the Divine Being in the same sense 
in which it is applied to creatures, with this difference, that the dura- 
tion of God is unlimited ; or blot it from our creed as a word to which 
we can attach no meaning. To say that the duration of God does not 
admit of past, present, and future, is to impugn the Scriptures ; for 
they speak of him as the Being " which is, and which was, and which 
is to come" 

§ 4. The Omnipotence of God. 

The Omnipotence of God is that unlimited power which he possesses 
to do whatever is consistent with the other perfections of his nature. 
Of this attribute we have an ample revelation, and that in the most 
sublime and impressive language, and connected with illustrations of the 
most striking character. 

From the annunciation in the Scriptures of a Divine Being who was 



Chap. 2, § 4.] OMNIPOTENCE. 147 

" in the beginning," the very first step is the display of his almighty 
power in the creation of the u heavens and the earth" and in arranging 
them in order and perfection. By this is meant, not only our globe 
with its atmosphere, or with its own celestial system, but the entire uni- 
verse ; for " he made the stars also." We are thus at once placed in 
the presence of an Agent of unbounded power, the strict and correct 
conclusion being, that he who could create such a world as this must be 
almighty. Let us then look at the manner in which the Scriptures 
exhibit the Divine Omnipotence. 

1. This Attribute was proclaimed in the simple fact of Creation 
— the creation of all things out of nothing. This itself, though it had 
been confined to a single object, however minute, exceeds finite compre- 
hension and overwhelms our faculties. But with God this required no 
effort : " He spake, and it was done ; he commanded, and it stood fast." 
Psalm xxxiii, 9. 

2. The vastness and variety of his works enlarge the concep- 
tion. — " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament 
showeth his handiwork." Psalm xix, 1. "He alone spreadeth out the 
heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea ; he maketh Arcturus, 
Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south ; he doeth great 
things past finding out ; yea, wonders without number." Job ix, 8, 9. 
" He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the 
earth upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters in the thick clouds ; and 
the cloud is not rent under them. He hath compassed the waters with 
bounds, until the day and night come to an end." Job xxvi, 7-10. 

3. The ease with which God sustains, orders, and controls the 
most powerful and unruly elements, presents his Omnipotence under 
an aspect of ineffable dignity and majesty. — He says to the mighty 
ocean, " Hitherto shalt thou come, but no farther ; and here shall thy 
proud waves be stayed." " Who hath measured the waters in the hol- 
low of his hand, and meted out the heaven with a span, and compre- 
hended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains 
in scales, and the hills in a balance?" Isaiah xl, 12. "He stood and 
measured the earth ; he beheld, and drove asunder the nations ; and the 
everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow." 
Hab. iii, 6. 

4. The same absolute subjection to his dominion is seen among 
his moral creatures. — Angels, men, and devils are swayed with as 
much ease as the least resistless elements. He "maketh his angels 
spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." Heb. i, 7. They vail their 
faces before his throne, and acknowledge themselves his servants. " It 
is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants 
thereof are as grasshoppers." Isa. xl, 17. "All nations before him are 
as nothing ; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity." 
Isa. xl, 22. " He spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down 



148 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto 
judgment." 2 Peter ii, 4. 

5. To complete them transcendent conceptions of the Almighty Power 
of God, our attrition is directed to the closing scene of time. — The 
dead of all nations and ages " shall hear his voice, and shall come forth." 
John v, 28. Before his face heaven and earth shall flee away ; " the stars 
shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken." 
Matt, xxiv, 29. "And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he 
shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep 
from the goats." Matt, xxv, 32. The wicked " shall go away into 
everlasting punishment ; but the righteous into life eternal." Matt. 
xxv, 46. 

Of these amazing views of the omnipotence of God, the power lies in 
their truth. They are not Eastern exaggerations, mistaken for sublimity. 
Everything in nature answers to them, and renews from age to age 
the impression which they must make upon every reflecting mind. The 
order of the astral revolutions, and the controlment of the ocean's bil- 
lows, exemplify the almighty power of God. " He toucheth the hills, 
and they smoke," is not mere imagery. Every volcano is a testimony 
in nature to that inspired truth, and earthquakes teach, that before him 
" the pillars of the earth tremble." 

Ample, however, as are the views which the Scriptures afford us of 
the power of God,, we are not to consider the subject as bounded by 
them, or to measure his omnipotence by the actual displays of it which 
have been made. They are manifestations of the principle, but not the 
?neasure of its capacity. "Lo, these are parts of his ways, but how 
little a portion is heard of him?" Job xxvi, 14. His power is, there- 
fore, truly almighty and measureless. 

There are some things which, to superficial thinkers, may seem to be 
inconsistent with infinite power, and to prove that though the power 
of God far transcends that of the mightiest creatures, it is nevertheless 
subject to certain limitations. Of these we shall briefly take notice, and 
show that such supposed limitations detract nothing from this perfection 
of the Divine nature. 

First, God cannot do that which implies a contradiction, as to make 
a thing to be and not to be at the same time — to make a part greater 
than the whole — because such contradictions are in their own nature 
impossible. Nor is it derogatory to the power of God to say that such 
things cannot be done ; for as the object of the eye must be that which 
is visible, and of the ear that which is audible, so the object of power 
must be that which is possible. The reason, then, that God cannot 
work contradictions, is not that he is deficient in power, but that they 
are in their own nature impossible. 

Secondly, God cannot do that which is repugnant to any of his per- 
fections. He cannot lie, or deceive, or deny himself, for to do so would 



Chap. 2, § 5.] OMNIPEESENCE. 149 

be injurious to his truth. He cannot love sin, for this would be incon- 
sistent with his holiness. He cannot punish the innocent, for this would 
destroy his goodness. This, however, is not a physical, but a moral 
impossibility, and is, therefore, no limitation of omnipotence ; but to 
ascribe a power to God which is inconsistent with the rectitude of his 
nature, is not to magnify, but to abase him. 

§ 5. Omnipresence of God. 

The Omnipresence or Ubiquity of God is his being everywhere 
present at the same time. 

A distinction is sometimes made between the omnipresence of God 
and his immensity. The latter is regarded as an absolute perfection of 
the Divine nature, which is necessarily unlimited ; while the former is 
viewed as a relative perfection, having respect only to created things. 
This distinction, however, if not improper, is at least unnecessary ; for 
omnipresence and immensity are the same perfection under different 



There is no part of the universe, no portion of space, in which God is 
not essentially present. Could we, with the swiftness of a sunbeam, 
travel beyond the limits of the creation, and for ages continue our prog- 
ress in infinite space, we should still be surrounded with the Divine 
presence, nor ever be able to reach that space where God is not. His 
presence also penetrates every part of our world. The most solid por- 
tions of matter cannot exclude it, for it pierces as easily the center of 
the globe as the yielding air. Neither the inmost recesses of the 
human heart, nor the deepest caverns of the earth, can for a moment 
exclude his presence. 

Proofs in support of this doctrine may be drawn from the Scriptures, 
and from the absolute perfection and works of God. 

1. From the Scriptures. 

The declarations of the Holy Scriptures, in proof and illustration of 
the omnipresence of God, are at once clear and sublime. " Behold the 
heaven, and the heaven of heavens, cannot contain thee." 1 Kings 
viii, 27. " Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from 
thy presence ? If I ascend up to heaven, thou art there ; if I make my 
bed in hell, behold thou art there ; if I take the wings of the morning 
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand 
lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." Psa. cxxxix, 7-10. " Do 
not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord?" Jer. xxiii, 24. God is 
" not far from every one of us ; for in him we live, and move, and 
have our being." Acts xvii, 27, 28. 

2. From the Idea of Absolute Perfection. 

Every sound theist ascribes infinite perfection to God, and conse- 
quently he must believe his essential essence to be infinite ; for it would 



150 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

be manifest absurdity to suppose a being to have infinite perfections 
and a finite nature, to be limited and unlimited at the same time. It is 
one of our clearest conceptions, that the degree of any quality must be 
relative to the nature in which it inheres. If, therefore, we allow the 
essence of God to be infinite, his omnipresence will necessarily follow. 
But to circumscribe his essence within any boundaries, however widely 
extended, would be to conceive of him as a limited and imperfect 
being, which is incompatible with every rational idea of God. Thus 
reason, as well as revelation, sustains the doctrine of the Divine omni- 
presence. But we may argue it, 

3. From the work of Creation. 

It is a truth which is most evident to all, that a being cannot act 
where it is not. If, therefore, we admit that God is the sole creator 
of the world, we cannot but allow that he must be present in every 
part of it. For, as no attribute of God can be separated from his 
essence, wherever his power is exerted there must his essence be. Con- 
sequently, if all things in the vast universe were created by him, he 
must be essentially present with all created things. This doctrine is 
proved also, 

4. From the work of Divine Providence. 

Reason and revelation both declare that the system of nature is sus- 
tained by the same power that raised it out of nothing. We are not 
to suppose that after it was created and made subject to certain laws, 
it was left to itself to move on, like a well-constructed machine, with- 
out the interference of the Architect. This would be to suppose that 
the universe is independent of its Maker. The laws of nature, then, to 
which its order and preservation are ascribed, are only the established 
and uniform modes according to which the power of God is exerted in 
his providential government of created things. But if God is the pre- 
server of all things, as well as their creator, and if he exercises a uni- 
versal providence over all his creatures, then must he necessarily be 
present everywhere. 

It was on this principle that the apostle argued when he disputed with 
the learned Athenians. God is " not far from every one of us ;" that is, 
he is intimately near and present with us ; " for in him we live, and 
move, and have our being." If things live, God is in them, and gives 
them life. If things move, God imparts to them their motion. If 
things have a being, that being is in God. Every object that meets 
our eye on the surface of the earth, or in the expanse above us, 
announces his presence. By him the sun shines, the winds blow, the 
earth is clothed with vegetation, and the tides of the ocean rise and 
fall. Everywhere he exists in the fullness of perfection. The universe 
is a magnificent temple, erected by his own hands, in which he mani- 
fests himself to his intelligent creatures. The Divine Inhabitant fills it, 
and every part shines with his glory. 



Chap. 2, § 6.] OMNISCIENCE. 151 

It will be -said, perhaps, that these arguments prove no more than 
that God is present throughout the whole creation. This is admitted ; 
but surely no one who has gone so far as this will choose to stop here, 
and conclude that the limit of the creation is the limit of the Divine 
essence. No reason can be assigned for circumscribing it ; but as we 
have found it in every step of our progress through the universe, we 
naturally conclude that if we could pursue the search we should find it 
where it exists alone. He who believes that the power of God is 
almighty, will admit that he could create new worlds; and he must, 
therefore, admit, that as he could not act where he is not, he must be 
present where no sun shines and where no planets roll. For all prac- 
tical purposes, it is enough to know that he fills heaven and earth ; 
but truth requires us to acknowledge the absolute immensity of his 
nature, for if he were bounded by creation he would not be infinite. 

Among metaphysicians it has been a matter of dispute whether God 
is present everywhere by an infinite extension of his essence. This 
opinion, which was advocated by Dr. S. Clarke and others, appears to 
be most in harmony with the Scriptures ; though the term extension, 
through the inadequacy of language, is too suggestive of materiality. 
But it is best to confess that there is an incomprehensibleness in the 
manner of the Divine ubiquity concerning which we ought not to dis- 
pute. That we cannot comprehend how God is fully, and completely, 
and undividedly present everywhere, need not surprise us; for the 
manner in which the human mind is present with the body is as incom- 
prehensible as the manner in which the supreme mind is present with 
everything in the universe. 

§ 6. The Omniscience of God. 

Omniscience is boundless knowledge; and when it is ascribed to 
God the meaning is, not merely that he has power to know everything, 
but that he actually knows all things, past, present, and future. In 
proof that this attribute belongs to God, the following arguments may 
be adduced: 

1. IT IS NECESSAEILY INCLUDED IN THE VERY IDEA OF A GOD. 

Every one who believes that there is such a being readily admits 
that he must possess intelligence. What excellence could we perceive 
in a God without knowledge ? We might suppose him to be eternal, 
immutable, and omnipresent ; but if he were ignorant of everything, 
even of his own existence and» attributes, as he would be if knowledge 
were not one of the number, the meanest creature who is conscious of 
his own thoughts, and capable of observation and reasoning, would be 
superior to him. In fact, we could hardly distinguish such a being 
from the material universe. The ancient Egyptians, who expressed 
their conceptions by hieroglyphics, made an eye the symbol of the 



152 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

Deity; intimating thereby that all things are open to his inspection. 
Though many, in the absence of supernatural instruction, have con- 
ceived their gods to be material beings, and have ascribed to them 
human passions and human infirmities, yet all have supposed them to 
be acquainted with the actions of men, and with the events which take 
place in the world. 

2. This Doctrine is expressly taught in the Word op God. 

" Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering." Job 
xxvi, 6. " O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou 
knowest my down-sitting and mine uprising ; thou understandest my 
thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and 
art acquainted with all my ways. ... If I say, Surely the darkness 
shall cover me ; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the dark- 
ness hideth not from thee ; but the night shineth as the day : the dark- 
ness and the light are both alike to thee." Psa. cxxxix, 1-3, 11, 12. 
"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the 
world." Acts xv, 18. How just, therefore, is the conclusion of the 
Psalmist, that u His understanding is infinite." Psa. cxlvii, 5. 

3. The Omniscience op God may be inferred from the Existence 
of Knowledge among his Creatures. 

We know, both from consciousness and observation, that there is 
intelligence among created beings. We know, likewise, that intelli- 
gence is a perfection, and that to possess it is better than to be with- 
out it. We know, moreover, that the intelligence of creatures must 
have had a beginning, and, consequently, some efficient cause. Now, 
as a cause cannot communicate a perfection which it does not itself 
possess, if we allow God to be the cause of intelligent creatures we 
must allow him to be possessed of knowledge. And if he is the First 
Cause, his knowledge must be infinite or unlimited ; since limitation 
without a limiter would be an effect without a cause. 

To assist our understanding, the objects of the Divine knowledge 
have sometimes been divided into several classes. 

(1.) God knows himself. — He knows what is his own essence, of 
which we can only say that it is spiritual, without being able to affix 
any positive idea to the term. He knows his own perfections, with 
some of which we have a partial acquaintance, while he may possess 
others of which we have no knowledge whatever. He knows the har- 
mony of his attributes, which we are often unable to reconcile. He 
knows his own counsels and plans, which are too extensive and compli- 
cated to be comprehended by any finite laind. He knows, in a word, 
all the mysteries of his nature, at which human reason stands amazed 
and confounded. 

(2.) God knows all things extrinsic to himself, whether past, pres- 
ent, or future. 

First, he knows all things that me past. Though they have gone by, 



Chap. 2, § 6.] OMNISCIENCE. 153 

and no memorial of them remains, they are still present to him, as if 
they continued to exist, and not one of them is forgotten. By the fac- 
ulty of memory we retain a knowledge of many past events. Though 
the sunbeam leaves no trace of its path, nor the cloud of its place in the 
sky, yet our sensations and thoughts make an impression upon our mind 
which lasts for years, and sometimes for life. Since, then, creatures 
possess the power of remembering the past, we must allow that the 
Creator possesses a similar power ; but with this difference, that in 
him it is free from all the imperfections to which human memory is 
subject. 

Without a knowledge of the past, God could not be the judge of the 
human race. At the close of time all the generations of men shall 
appear before him, to receive their final award ; but the justice of the sen- 
tence will depend upon his perfect knowledge of their character and 
actions. As he was witness to their conduct during its course, so he 
will recall the minutest parts of it, though after an interval of thousands 
of years. To impress this more deeply upon the mind, and to assure us 
that no mistake will be committed, the Scriptures declare, in allusion to 
the proceedings of earthly courts, that "the books" shall be opened, 
and that the dead shall be judged according to what is written in them. 

Secondly, God knows all things that now are. In this respect his 
knowledge resembles our own, but is infinitely superior in degree. He 
tells the number of the stars, and calls them by their names. He sees 
in one view the various orders of living creatures by which the universe 
is peopled. He knows every human being, however obscure. He 
observes the most insignificant objects in animated nature. "Are not 
five sparrows sold for two farthings ? and not one of them is forgotten 
before God." Luke xii, 6. Nothing can be more unimportant than a 
single hair; and yet our Lord says, "The very hairs of your head 
are all numbered." Matt, x, 30. The humblest person upon earth has 
therefore no right to Jear that, amid the innumerable objects which 
engage the Divine attention, he shall be overlooked ; nor may he whose 
interest it would be to remain unnoticed, hope that he shall be concealed 
from the eye of Omniscience. 

Thirdly, God knows all things that will be in futurity. In this 
respect there is no resemblance of his knowledge in man ; nor, we pre- 
sume, in any created being. That God sees the future, as well as the 
past and the present, is fully established by the predictions of the Scrip- 
tures, many of which have been most circumstantially fulfilled. This 
subject may be seen in its true light by reference to Book I, chap. 7. 

The knowledge of God in regard to future events is called fore- 
knowledge or prescience. Its objects are, 1. Necessary events, or 
those things which result from the established course of nature, or from 
a fixed Divine decree ; 2. Conditional events, or those things which will 
take place only on certain conditions, as the good or evil that will be 



154 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

done by persons under given circumstance ; and, 3. Contingent events, 
or those which depend upon the will of moral agents. 

Some have supposed it to be difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile 
this view of the Divine foreknowledge with the freedom of human 
actions and man's accountability. Hence they have adopted various 
modifications of opinion as to the knowledge of God, in order to avoid 
this supposed difficulty and to remove objections. Two of these theories 
we may here examine, that the true doctrine of Scripture may be fully 
brought out and established. 

The first theory is that of Chevalier Ramsay, who held it to be " a 
matter of choice in God to think of finite ideas ;" and similar opinions, 
though variously worded, have been occasionally adopted. In substance 
his theory is this : that though the knowledge of God is infinite, as his 
power is infinite, there is no more reason to conclude that his knowledge 
should be always exerted to the full extent of its capacity, than that his 
power should be employed to the extent of his omnipotence ; and that 
if we suppose him to choose not to know some contingencies, the infi- 
niteness of his knowledge is not thereby impugned. 

To this it may be answered, 1. That the Scriptures represent the 
power of God, as in the nature of things it must be, as an infinite capac- 
ity, and not as an infinite act ; while they speak of the knowledge of 
God, not as a capacity to know, but as actually comprehending all 
things. 2. That if God chooses not to know some things, the reason 
why he refuses to know 'them can only arise out of their nature 
and circumstances ; and this supposes at least a partial knowledge of 
them, from which the reason of his choosing not to know them arises. 
The doctrine is therefore somewhat contradictory. But, 3. It is fatal to 
this opinion that it does not meet the difficulty which it was intended 
to obviate. We are sure that some contingent actions, for which men 
have been made accountable, were foreknown by God, because by his 
Spirit in the prophets they were foretold ; and "if the freedom of man 
can in these cases be reconciled to the prescience of God, so it may in 
every other case which can possibly occur. 

The second theory is, that the foreknowledge of contingent events is in 
its own nature impossible, because it implies a contradiction ; and that, 
therefore, it does not dishonor God to affirm that of such events he can 
have no prescience whatever. Thus, the prescience of God as to moral 
actions being wholly denied, the difficulty of reconciling it with human 
freedom and human accountability has no existence. 

Our first answer to this scheme is, that while we acknowledge the 
authority of the Scriptures, it does not remove the difficulty. That man 
is accountable to God for his conduct, and therefore free, are doctrines 
clearly contained in the Bible ; and to the notion of necessity we have 
here a full and satisfactory reply. "Whether we hold, therefore, that the 
knowledge of God, like his power, is arbitrary, or that the prescience of 



Chap. 2, § 6.] OMNISCIENCE. 155 

contingencies is impossible, so long as the Scriptures are allowed to con- 
tain predictions respecting the moral conduct of men the difficulty of 
reconciling such conduct with the foreknowledge of God remains in all 
its force. 

That the Bible contains many predictions which involve the free 
actions of men, no one can deny. It was predicted, for instance, that 
Babylon should be taken by Cyrus in the midst of a midnight revel ; 
that the Messiah should be taken away by a violent death, inflicted by 
men in defiance of all the principles of justice ; and that Jerusalem 
should be utterly destroyed by the Roman army. If the moral actions 
connected with these events were contingent, what comes of the princi- 
ple that it is impossible to foreknow contingencies ? They were fore- 
known, because the results of them were predicted. But if they were 
not contingent they must have been necessary, and, consequently, 
neither virtuous nor vicious. It must be evident to every careful 
observer, that the whole body of prophecy is founded on the certain pre- 
science of contingent actions ; for otherwise it would not be prophecy, 
but guess and conjecture. Such are the fearful results to which a 
denial of the Divine prescience leads. 

On the main principle of the theory, that the prescience of contingent 
events is impossible, because their nature would thereby be destroyed, 
we may add a few remarks. 

We acknowledge that the manner in which God foreknows future 
events of any kind is incomprehensible ; but that such a property exists 
in the Divine nature is too clearly stated in the Scriptures to allow of 
any doubt. It is equally clear that the moral actions of men are not 
necessitated, because human accountability is the main pillar of that 
moral government which the Scriptures unfold. Whatever, therefore, 
becomes of human speculations, these points are sufficiently settled, and 
our inability to perceive their congruity is no proof that the facts do 
not exist. 

But the position, that certain prescience destroys contingency, is a 
mere sophism. The fallacy lies in the supposition that contingency and 
certainty are opposites ; whereas the term contingency is used in this 
controversy in the sense of freedom. An action which results from 
the choice of the agent is distinguished from a necessary action in this, 
that it might not have been, or might have been otherwise, according 
to the self-determining power of the agent. To express this freedom of 
moral actions the term contingency is used, and it is, therefore, opposed 
to necessity, and not to certainty. The very nature of the controversy 
fixes this as the precise meaning of the term. The question is not, in 
point of fact, about the certainty of moral actions, that is, whether they 
will happen or not, but about their nature, whether they must happen 
or not. Accordingly, those who deny the prescience of moral 
actions do not do so because they care anything about their cer- 



156 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

tainty; but because they conclude that such a prescience renders them 
necessary. 

If contingency meant uncertainty, the dispute would be at an end. 
But though an uncertain action cannot be foreseen as certain, yet a free 
unnecessitated action may ; for there is nothing in the knowledge of the 
action which can in the least affect its nature. Necessitated actions 
are not made voluntary, nor are free actions made necessary by their 
being foreknown. Consequently the certain prescience of free actions 
does not destroy their contingency. 

But how stands the case as to the certainty of contingent events ? 
Precisely on the same ground as that of others. The certainty of a 
necessary action results from the operation of its necessitating cause ; 
and that of a free action, from the determination of a voluntary cause. 
Whether, therefore, an action is necessary or free, its being foreknown 
has nothing to do with its certainty. ISTor will it alter the case to say, 
that a voluntary action might have been otherwise; for had it been 
otherwise, the knowledge of it would have been otherwise also. The 
foreknowledge of God, then, has no influence upon either the freedom 
or the certainty of actions, for this plain reason, that it is knowledge 
and not power / nor does certain foreknowledge render actions neces- 
sary. 

But here it is objected, that if the result of an absolute contingency is 
certainly foreknown it cannot happen otherwise. This is not the true 
inference. It will not happen otherwise ; but why could it not happen 
otherwise ? What deprives it of that power ? It may be said of a 
necessary action that it could not otherwise happen; but then that 
would arise from its necessitating cause, and not from the prescience of 
the action. If, however, the action is free, and if it enters into the very 
nature of a voluntary action to be unconstrained^ then it might have 
happened in a thousand other ways or not have happened at all. The 
foreknowledge of it no more affects its nature in this case than in the 
other. 

But then we are told, that according to this view of contingent events 
the prescience of them must be uncertain. Not unless it can be proved 
that the Divine prescience is unable to dart through all the workings of 
the human mind, all its comparisons of things in the judgment, all the 
influences of motives on the affections, all the hesitancies and haltings 
of the will, to its final choice. " Such knowledge is too wonderful for 
us," but it is the knowledge of Him who " understandeth the thoughts 
of man afar off." 



§ 7. The Immutability of God. 

When we say that God is immutable, the meaning is that he is 
unchangeable; that he always was, is, and will be to all eternity, the 



Chap. 2, § 7.] IMMUTABILITY. 157 

same; that he is subject to no change either in his essence or in his 
perfections. The Immutability of God may be proved, 

1. From the Holt Scriptures. 

This is indicated in his august and awful title, " I am." All other 
beings are dependent and mutable, and thus stand in striking contrast 
to him who is independent, and, therefore, incapable of change. " The 
counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all 
generations." Psa. xxx, 11. "Of old hast thou laid the foundations of 
the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall 
perish, but thou shalt endure ; yea, all of them shall wax old like a gar- 
ment, as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed ; 
but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." Psa. cii, 25-27. 
"I am the Lord, I change not." Mai. iii, 6. He is "the Father of 
lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." J.ames 
i, 17. But of this truth, which is so important to religion and morals, 
we have a confirmation, 

2. In the uniformity of the Laws by which the Natural 
World is governed. 

The ample universe, with its immense aggregate of individual beings, 
displays not only the all-comprehending and pervading power of God, 
but, as it remains from age to age subject to the same laws, and fulfill- 
ing the same purposes, it is a visible image of the existence of a Being 
of steady counsels, free from caprice, and liable to no control. 

3. The Moral Government or God gives its Evidence to the 
same Truth. 

The laws under which we are now placed are the same as those 
which w r ere prescribed to the earliest generations of men. What was 
vice then is vice now, and what was virtue then is virtue now. Miser- 
ies of the same kind and degree have been consequent on the former, 
and peace and blessedness have accompanied the latter in every age of 
the world. God has manifested his will to men by successive revela- 
tions, as the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and Christian ; but though these 
revelations were many ages distant from one another, the moral princi- 
ples on which they rest are precisely the same, as are also the moral 
ends which they propose. Their differences are merely circumstantial, 
varying according to the age of the world, the condition of mankind, 
and the plans of Infinite Wisdom ; but the identity of their spirit, their 
influence, and their character, shows their Author to be an unchange- 
able being of holiness, truth, justice, and mercy. 

4. The Immutability of God may be inferred from the Perfec- 
tion of his Nature. 

The stability of the Divine operations and counsels, as indicated by 
the laws of the material universe and the revelations of the Divine will, 
only shows the immutability of God through those periods within 
which these operations and dispensations have been in force ; but in 



158 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

Scripture this attribute is represented as one which arises out of the 
Divine nature itself, and which is therefore essential to it. " I am the 
Lord, I change not." He changes not because he is "the Lord." To 
suppose him capable of change is to suppose him an imperfect being ; 
for if he change, it must be to a higher or a lower degree of perfection. 
If to a higher, it will argue a previous imperfection, and show that he 
is not God ; and if to a lower, he will not be perfect after the change, and 
so not God. The sovereign and absolute perfection of the Deity is 
therefore an invincible bar against all mutability. In his being and 
perfections he is eternally the same. He cannot cease to be. He can- 
not become more perfect, because his perfection is absolute. He cannot 
become less so, because he is independent of all external power, and has 
no internal principle of decay. 

We must not, however, so interpret the immutability of God as to 
conclude that his operations admit no change ; or that he is incapable 
of different regards and affections toward the same creatures under 
different circumstances. He creates, and he destroys ; he wounds, and 
he heals ; he works, and he ceases from working ; he loves, and he hates ; 
but these, as being under the direction of his immutable wisdom, holi- 
ness, goodness, and justice, are the proofs of the unchanging principles 
of his nature. Thus in Scripture language, " The Lord loveth the right- 
eous," but " he is angry with the wicked." If, however, the righteous 
turn away from their righteousness, they will cease to be the objects of 
God's love ; and if the wicked turn from their wickedness, his anger 
against them will be averted.* 

There is a sense in which this may be called change in God ; but it is 
not the change of imperfection and defect. It argues precisely the con- 
trary. If the love or the anger of God toward his moral subjects did 
not correspond with their moral character, he could not be the un- 
changeable lover of holiness, and hater of iniquity. By these scrip- 
tural doctrines, therefore, the Divine immutability is confirmed. 

Allied to the immutability of God is his liberty. This enables us to 
conceive of his unchangeableness in a suitable manner — to view it as the 
result of his will and infinite moral excellence, and not as the consequence 
of a blind and physical necessity. He is a God " who worketh all things 
after the counsel of his own will." Eph. i, 11. A being who does not 
possess liberty cannot properly be called an agent, or the cause of any- 
thing; for to act necessarily is really and properly not to act at all, but 
only to be acted upon. If the Supreme Cause is a mere necessary 
agent, whose actions are all as absolutely necessary as his existence, 
then it follows that nothing which is not could possibly have been ; 
that nothing which is could possibly not have been ; and that no cir- 
cumstance of anything that exists could possibly have been otherwise 
than it now is. But if these conclusions are evidently false and absurd, 
* See Ezek. xviii, 26, 27. 



Chap. 2, § 8.J WISDOM. 159 

it will necessarily follow that the Supreme Cause is not a necessary- 
agent, but a being who possesses liberty and choice. " He doeth 
according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants 
of the earth." Dan. iv, 35. 

§ 8. The Wisdom of God. 

The Wisdom of God is that grand attribute of his nature by which 
he knows and orders all things for the promotion of his glory and the 
good of his creatures. 

Wisdom, considered merely as a mental attribute, is the faculty of 
discerning what is most proper and useful ; but when viewed in a prac- 
tical light, it is the choice of laudable ends, and of the best means to 
accomplish them. Wisdom may easily be distinguished from knowledge. 
The latter is simply the apprehension of things as they are ; the former 
is the arrangement of our ideas in proper order, and in such a train as 
to produce some practical and useful result. Wisdom cannot exist with- 
out knowledge, but knowledge may exist without wisdom. Accord- 
ingly, there are men possessing very extensive knowledge who in their 
conduct give many proofs of a great want of wisdom. In an all-perfect 
being, however, these attributes are necessarily conjoined. Omniscience 
supplies the materials of Infinite Wisdom. 

That God possesses the attribute of wisdom in its highest perfec- 
tion is proved, 

1. From the Sacked Scriptures. 

"With him is wisdom and strength; he hath counsel and understand- 
ing." Job xii, 13. "He is mighty in strength and wisdom." Job 
xxxvi, 5. " O Lord, how manifold are thy works ! in icisdom hast thou 
made them all." Psalm civ, 24. God has performed everything by nice 
and delicate adjustment — by number, weight, and measure. " He look- 
eth to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven to make 
the weight for the winds ; and he weigheth the waters by measure. 
When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the 
thunder, then did he see it, and declare it ; he prepared it, yea, and 
searched it out." Job xxviii, 24-27. " Now /unto the King eternal, im- 
mortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever 
and ever. Amen." 1 Tim. i, 17. But the wisdom of God is proved 
also, 

2. From the works of Creation. 

Our general design will not allow us to pursue this argument to any 
great length, nor will it be necessary here to call up particular instances 
illustrative of the Divine Wisdom. This was done to a sufficient 
extent in the first chapter of this book, in proof of an intelligent and 
designing Cause. We can only, therefore, notice a few leading princi- 
ples, according to which the works of God seem to be regulated, and in 



160 THE ATTKIBUTES OF GOD. [Book I. 

the operations of which his wisdom is signally manifested. "We may 
remark, then, 

(1.) That God performs all his worJcs for worthy ends. — To act with 
design, is a sufficient proof of intelligence ; but wisdom requires that 
the exercise of the understanding should heft and proper. We acknowl- 
edge our inability to enter fully into the designs of God even after they are 
revealed ; but since he has endowed us with some portion of under- 
standing, there is no arrogance in venturing to say, when we see him 
pursuing certain ends, that they appear to us to be suitable to the dig- 
nity of his character. For many of his acts the reasons are at least par- 
tially given in his own word ; and they command at once our admira- 
tion and gratitude, as worthy of himself and benevolent toward us. 

The reason of the creation of the world was the manifestation of the 
perfections of God to his rational creatures, and to confer on them a 
felicity equal to their largest capacity. The end was important, and the 
means by which it was to be accomplished evidently^. To he, was 
itself made a source of satisfaction. God was revealed to man as his 
Maker, Lord, and Friend ; and though he was invisible, every object 
was fitted to make him present to the mind of his creature, and to be a 
remembrancer of his power, glory, and care. The understanding of 
man was called into exercise by the number, the variety, and the curi- 
ous structure of the works of God ; while their sublimity, beauty, and 
harmony coDtributed to his pleasures of taste. 

God manifested himself to man, not only in his creative munificence 
and preserving care, but also in the directions of his holy law ; thus array- 
ing himself in the full splendor of his natural and moral attributes, the 
object of love and awe, of trust and submission. The great moral end 
of man's creation, and of his residence in the world, and the means by 
which this end was accomplished, were, therefore, displays of the Divine 
wisdom. 

(2.) That in the works of God numerous and great effects are pro- 
duced by few and simple means. — From one material substance, possess- 
ing the same essential proprieties, all the visible beings which surround 
us are made: the granite roclc, and the central sun; the moveless clod, 
the rapid lightning, and the transparent air. Gravitation unites the 
atoms which compose the world, combines the planets into one system, 
and regulates their motions. And though its power is vast, and its 
influence all-pervading, it submits to an infinite number of modifications 
which allow of the motion of individual bodies, and give place even to 
contrary forces, which yet it controls and regulates. 

One act of Divine power, in giving a certain inclination to the earth's 
axis, produces its vicissitudes of seasons, giving laws to its temperature, 
and covering it with an increased variety of productions. To the com- 
position of light, and a few simple laws impressed upon it, every object 
owes its color, and thus the heavens and the earth are invested with 



Chap. 2, § 8.] WISDOM. 161 

beauty. A combination of earth, water, and the gases of the 
atmosphere forms the strength and majesty of the oak, and the grace, 
beauty, and odor of the rose ; and from the principle of evaporation 
are formed clouds which drop fatness upon the earth, dews which 
refresh the languid fields, and springs and rivers which cause the valleys 
to rejoice through which they flow. 

(3.) That in the works of God there is an endless variety of equally 
perfect operations. — " O Lord, how manifold are thy works !" All the 
three kingdoms of nature pour forth the riches of variety. It is seen in 
the varied forms of crystalization and composition in minerals ; in the 
colors, forms, and qualities of vegetables ; and in the kinds, properties, 
and habits of animals. No two things are exactly alike, even when of 
the same kind. Plants of the same species, and the leaves and flowers 
of the same plant, have all their varieties. Animals of the same kind 
have their individual character. The wisdom of this appears more 
strongly marked when we consider that important ends often depend 
upon it. The resemblance of various natural things in greater or less 
degree becomes the means of acquiring a knowledge of them with 
greater ease, because it is made the basis of their arrangement into 
kinds and sorts, without which the human memory would fail and the 
understanding be confused. 

But a difference in things is as important as their resemblance. If 
domestic animals did not differ individually, no property could be 
claimed in them, nor when lost could they be recovered. The counte- 
nance, the voice, and the manner of every man differ from all the rest of 
his species. This is not only an illustration of the resources of creative 
power and wisdom, but of design and intention, to secure a practical 
end. Parents, children, and friends could not otherwise be distin- 
guished, nor the criminal from the innocent. No felon could be identi- 
fied by his accusers, and courts of judgment would not only be 
obstructed, but often rendered of no avail for the protection of life and 
property. 

To variety* of kind and form we may add that of magnitude. In the 
works of God we have the extremes of minuteness 'and magnificence, 
and those extremes filled up in perfect gradation from the one to the 
other. We adore the mighty sweep of that power which scooped the 
bed of the fathomless ocean, moulded the mountains, and filled space 
with innumerable worlds ; but the same hand formed the animalcule 
which requires the strongest magnifying power of optical instruments to 
make it visible. The workmanship, however, is as complete in the 
smallest as in the most massive object. But we may add, 

(4.) That the connection and dependence of the works of God are as 
wonderful as their variety. — Every created object fills its place, not b}' 
accident, but by design. The meanest weed that grows stands in inti- 
mate connection with the mighty universe. It depends upon the 

il 



162 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

atmosphere for moisture, which atmosphere supposes an ocean, clouds, 
winds, and gravitation. It depends upon the sun for its color, and for 
its required degree of temperature ; and this supposes the revolution of 
the earth, and the adjustment of the whole planetary system. 

We have, however, the highest manifestation of the Divine "Wisdom, 

3. In the Plan of Human Redemption. 

It is in this that God " hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and 
prudence." Herein does the perfection of his wisdom shine forth, in 
his reconciling the exercise of mercy with the claims of justice, and in 
his doing this by such an expedient as is perfectly consistent with the 
ends of his moral government. There is Divine wisdom reflected even 
from the cross of Christ. His ignominious death was no doubt intended 
by his enemies, to defeat the benevolent purpose for which he came into 
the world ; but in the wisdom of God it was made the means by which 
he triumphed over men and devils, overturning the powers of darkness, 
and filling heaven and earth with wonder and joy. 

§ 9. The Truth of God. 

By the Truth of God we understand his perfect and undeviating 
veracity in all his communications to mankind. When we speak of him 
as the True God, we mean to distinguish him from the imaginary gods 
of the heathen, and to ascribe to him supreme divinity. But when we 
say that he is a God of Truth, our design is, not directly to assert his 
divinity, but to declare his veracity. We virtually say, that all his com- 
munications to us are in exact accordance with the real nature of 
things ; and that there is the utmost sincerity in all his declarations, 
and faithfulness in all his promises and purposes. This attribute of 
God may be proved, 

1. From the Sacred Scriptures. 

To this it may be objected, that it is absurd to bring God's own 
declarations to evince his truth, since this is to take for granted the 
very doctrine to be proved and to reason in a circle. We acknowledge 
this objection to be a specious one, but contend that it is unsound. 
It must be granted, that the mere declaration on the part of any being 
that he is sincere, furnishes, by itself, no evidence of his sincerity ; for 
we know that insincere persons will as readily claim sincerity as those 
who are sincere. But the uniform agreement of a man's declarations 
with facts is justly regarded by his fellow-men as a satisfactory proof 
of his sincerity and truthfulness. In the same manner God may evince 
his veracity by his own declarations, and this he has done in the Scrip- 
tures, as may easily be shown. 

(l .) God has declared himself to he a God of Truth. — "For the word 
of the Lord is right, and all his works are done in truth.'''' Psa. xxxiii, 4. 
" My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of 



Chap. 2, § 9.] TRUTH. 163 

my lips." Psa. lxxxix, 34. " The truth of the Lord endureth forever." 
Psa. cxvii, 2. " God is not a man, that he should lie ; neither the Son 
of man, that he should repent. Hath he said, and shall he not do it ? 
or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" Num. xxiii, 19. 
"It was impossible for God to lie." Heb. vi, 18. These passages are 
adduced, not to prove the veracity of God, but to show that he claims 
to be a God of truth. 

(2.) The declarations of God are all in strict agreement with the 
facts professedly declared. — The history which the Scriptures contain 
is, even at this day, capable of being satisfactorily examined as to its 
accordance with facts. Some parts of it are, indeed, beyond the reach 
of a direct examination ; but, as almost all of it can be thus examined, 
and can at any time be proved to be true, the truth of the rest cannot 
reasonably be called in question. In these declarations we have as con- 
vincing evidence of the truth of God, as we can have of the veracity 
of men from the agreement of their declarations with the real state of 
things. 

(3.) God has uttered numerous predictions ichich have been exactly 
fidfilled. — In this manner he has not only proved his omniscience, but 
also his truth ; especially in the exact accomplishment of such pre- 
dictions as appeared, at the time when they were uttered, altogether 
unlikely to be fulfilled. Such were those which related to the advent, 
the character, and the mediation of the Messiah. Such, also, were 
those which respected his dispensations to the Jewish Church and 
nation, and the establishment and progress of Christianity. Of the 
fulfillment of these and other similar predictions no explanation can be 
given which will not firmly establish the truth of God. 

(4.) God has verified both his promises and his threatenings in 
regard to men. — So far as he has promised blessing to them in this 
life, or threatened them with punishments, he has not failed, in the 
course of his providence, to bestow those blessings and to inflict those 
punishments. In this, therefore, we have another strong scriptural 
argument in support of the Divine veracity. But the truth of God 
may be argued, 

2. From his other Perfections. 

If he possesses in himself all power, wisdom, justice, holiness, and 
goodness, he must be at an infinite distance from all those influences 
which lead men to practice deceit and falsehood. Men sometimes 
speak what is not agreeable to truth from ignorance, or misconception 
of the subject of discourse; but with God there can be no such defect. 
He knows perfectly the nature of all things, with all their various 
relations ; and, therefore, he cannot be deceived or err in judgment. 
" God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." 1 John i, 5. 

The declarations of men may be made rashly, without a foresight of 
consequences, or they may not be distinctly remembered ; and, there- 



164 THE ATTEIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

fore, they are not always, nor with foil confidence, to be received and 
depended on. But the perfect knowledge and wisdom of God, which 
must, under all circumstances, be the same, infallibly secure him from 
precipitancy, instability, and forgetfulness. Men may violate their 
engagements for the want of ability to fulfill them ; but the omnip- 
otence of God precludes every idea of difficulty where his word is con- 
cerned. Men may be disposed to deceive one another, or violate their 
promises through malevolence of nature, or from selfish motives ; but 
" the Holy One of Israel," being self-existent, and perfectly independ- 
ent, cannot be liable to such temptations. The veracity of God may 
be inferred, 

3. From his having implanted in Man a disposition to esteem 
Truth and despise Falsehood. 

This respect for truth and contempt for falsehood are irresistible, 
from two causes : First, they are the necessary dictates of the under- 
standing, and are perfectly independent of any feeling or influence on 
the heart. Knaves, as truly and irresistibly as honest men, despise 
knavery and falsehood ; and no other dictate of the understanding was 
ever found or can ever exist among men. But, secondly, truth is 
known to be absolutely necessary to the happiness of mankind, and 
invariably productive of it ; and falsehood utterly inconsistent with our 
happiness, and invariably productive of misery. "We see, then, in this 
great practical lesson that men are compelled to respect truth, with- 
out a possibility of its being otherwise, and to despise deceit and 
falsehood. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that God, as a perfectly independent 
being, would impress on the mind of his creatures any character which 
is not in strict accordance with his own. But if the necessary dictates 
of the human understanding, in regard to truth and falsehood, are in 
accordance with the character of God, he must be a God of truth. 
Moreover, as God has so constituted us that we are compelled to 
esteem truth and to despise falsehood; and as he has commanded us 
to " love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and 
with all the soul," it follows, as a necessary consequence, that he is a 
God of absolute veracity ; for if he were not we could not love him 
at all, much less as he requires. But the veracity of God is proved, 

4. From the consequences which would follow a denial 

OF IT. 

If no confidence could be placed in God, none could be placed in any 
other being. Every thought, purpose, interest, and hope would be 
afloat on the waves of a boundless and perpetually disturbed ocean, 
where rest and safety could never be found. Suspicion and jealousy 
would make all men strangers and enemies to one another. Suspense 
would fill every mind, and hang, as a dark cloud, over every enjoyment. 
Truth would be known, if known at all, only as a thing unattainable;' 



Chap. 2, § 10.] JUSTICE. 165 

and, wandering in endless doubt and perplexity, we should close our 
comfortless existence without being able to tell whence we had come 
or whither we were going. A Divine revelation would afford no satis- 
faction ; because, amid the subversion of all evidence, it would be 
impossible, to ascertain that it had proceeded from the Author of our 
being. But if even this point could be settled, that would not prove 
its statements to be worthy of credit. 

It is by the truth of God that this restless and stormy ocean is 
hushed to peace. All men know, or may know, that the purposes, the 
declarations, and the promises of God are immutable ; and that he can 
neither deceive their confidence nor disappoint their reasonable hopes. 
However fluctuating and uncertain the state of things may be with 
respect to creatures, the soul rests on God with perfect jeliance and 
final safety. 

It only remains to be observed that the truth of God, when we con- 
sider it in its relation to the accomplishment of his predictions, his 
promises, or his threatenings, is denominated faithfulness. In this 
God manifests his veracity by declaring beforehand what his subse- 
quent conduct will be; and afterward, by acting according to his 
previous declarations. The truth and the faithfulness of God are, 
then, in reality the same moral perfection, only viewed under different 
circumstances ; nor can we conceive of his possessing the one and not 
the other. There is, therefore, no reason for making them separate 
subjects of examination. 

§ 10. The Justice of God. 

The Justice of God is defined by Dr. Ryland to be, "the ardent 
inclination of his will to prescribe equal laws as the Supreme Governor, 
and to dispense equal rewards and punishments as the Supreme Judge." 
It is that attribute by which God actively manifests his approbation of 
what is good, and disapprobation of what is evil. It is, therefore, the 
same in essence with his holiness. So far as God takes pleasure in 
what is good, he is called holy ; so far as he exhibits this pleasure, in 
his actual procedure in the government of the world, he is called just. 
The term holiness, accordingly, refers rather to the internal disposition 
of God ; and justice, to the display or outward manifestation of this 
disposition. 

The justice of God may be considered as general or particular. The 
general or universal justice of God is that perfection of his nature which 
leads him, on all occasions, to do what is right and equal, and is often 
expressed by the term righteousness. His partimlar justice consists in 
his perfect rectitude as a moral governor. His justice, in this sense, is 
either legislative or judicial. 

Legislative justice determines man's duty and binds him to the 



166 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

performance of it. It also defines the rewards of the obedient and the 
punishments of the rebellious. God has unquestionably an absolute right 
to the entire and perpetual obedience of his creatures ; and in pursuance 
of this all moral agents are placed under law, and are subject to rewards 
and punishments. 

Judicial justice is that which respects a righteous retribution. God 
" will render to every man according to his deeds." Rom. ii, 6. This 
branch of justice is either remunerative, as when God rewards the obe- 
dient, or vindictive, as when he punishes the guilty. Rewards, properly 
speaking, are of grace, and not of debt ; for God cannot be a debtor to 
his creatures. But since he binds himself by engagements in his law, 
"this do, and thou shaltlive," or attaches a particular promise of reward 
to some duty, it becomes a part of justice to perform the engagement. 
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." 
1 John i, 9. 

Vindictive or punitive justice consists in the infliction of punish- 
ment. In the first place, it renders the punishment of unpardoned sin 
certain, so that no criminal shall escape ; and, secondly, it graduates 
the exact proportion of punishment to the nature and circumstances of 
the oifense. Both these facts are marked in numerous passages of Scrip- 
ture, the testimony of which on this subject may be summed up in the 
words of Elihu : " For the work of man shall he render unto him, and 
cause every man to find according to his ways ; yea, surely God will 
not do wickedly, neither Avill the Almighty pervert judgment." Job 
xxxiv, 12. 

There are many circumstances in the administration of the affairs of 
the world which appear to be irreconcilable to that strict exercise of 
justice which is ascribed to God as our Supreme Ruler. We see, for 
instance, that the notoriously wicked, in some cases, enjoy a long life 
and great worldly prosperity, while those who are truly pious are sub- 
jects of poverty and affliction. But if we take these two facts into the 
account, 1, that offending man is under a dispensation of mercy, which 
provides for his pardon and moral renovation ; and, 2, that God has 
"appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness," a 
satisfactory light will be thrown upon all those cases in the Divine admin- 
istration which have been thought most difficult. 

The doctrine of a future and general judgment, which alone explains 
so many difficulties in the dispensations of Providence, is grounded 
solely on the doctrine of redemption. Under an administration of strict 
justice, punishment must follow offense without delay. This is clearly 
indicated in the sanction of the first law, " in the day thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die ;" a threat which w T ould have been fully executed 
but for the immediate introduction of the redeeming scheme. Under 
such an administration no reason would seem to exist for a general 
judgment. This has its reason in the circumstances of trial in which 



Chap. 2, § 11.] HOLINESS. 167 

men are placed by the introduction of a method of recovery. Justice, 
in virtue of the atonement, admits of the suspension of punishment for 
offense, of long-suffering, of the application of means of repentance and 
conversion, and that through the whole term of human life. But the 
judgment, the examination, and the public exhibition of the use or abuse 
of these appliances are deferred to an appointed day, in which he who 
now offers grace will administer justice, strict and unsparing. 

However difficult it may be, without taking these things into consid- 
eration, to trace the manifestations of justice in God's moral govern- 
ment, or to reconcile certain circumstances with the character of a 
righteous governor, by their aid all difficulty is entirely removed. 
Indeed, the single fact of a general judgment is enough to rectify all 
the inequality of present dispensations were it a thousand times 
greater. 

From these remarks respecting the nature and characteristics of 
Divine justice several important conclusions may be drawn. 

1. It is no impeachment of a righteous government that external pros- 
perity should be the lot of great offenders. This may be part of a 
gracious adminstration to bring them to repentance by favor • or it 
may be designed to make their fall and final punishment more marked, 
and to show the light value of outward advantages, separate from holy 
habits and a thankful heart. 

2. It is not inconsistent with the rectitude of God that the pious 
should be afflicted and oppressed, since their defects may require chas- 
tisement, and since, also, afflictions are made to work out for them " a 
far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." 

3. As the administration under which man is placed is one of (/race hi 
harmony with justice, the dispensation of what is purely matter of favor 
may have a great variety, without any impeachment of Divine justice. 
Of this fact the parable of our Lord respecting the laborers in the vine- 
yard is a fit illustration.* 

4. But with nations the case is very different. Their rewards and 
punishments, being of a civil nature, may be fully administered in this 
life ; for, as bodies politic, they have no posthumous existence. Na- 
tional retribution has, therefore, in all ages, been visible and striking. 
In succession all vicious nations have perished ; and always by means 
so marked, and often so singular, as to bear upon them a broad and 
legible punitive character. 

§ 11. The Holiness of God. 

Holiness, considered as an attribute of God, is his perfect moral pur- 
ity. It is that perfection of his nature by which he is infinitely averse 
to all moral evil, and inclined to love all that is good and right. The 

* See Matt, xx, 1-16. 



168 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

holiness of God, then, implies the absence of all moral impurity and 
imperfection, and the possession, in an infinite degree, of all that is 
morally pure, lovely, and excellent. 

It may be proper to remark, that the term holy, when applied to God, 
is sometimes used to signify august and venerable. Thus, when the 
Psalmist pronounces his name to be " Holy and Reverend," the second 
epithet may be understood to be exegetical of the first. And when he 
says that " his holy arm hath gotten him the victory," there is no direct 
reference to moral excellence, but to majestic force, to irresistible power. 
The command to " sanctify the Lord," is a command to treat him with 
the most profound reverence, and is thus explained by Isaiah : " Sanc- 
tify the Lord God of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let 
him be our dread." Isa. viii, 13. He is a Being separated or distin- 
guished from all other beings by his infinite excellence, as sacred things 
are separated from things that are common. He is possessed of every 
perfection, intellectual and moral, in the highest possible degree, and is, 
therefore, entitled to the veneration of angels and of men. 

But while the holiness of God does certainly suggest, in many 
instances, the idea of greatness or majesty, it is equally certain, that in 
others it is expressive of the purity of his nature. This is obviously 
the case in the following passage : " As he which hath called you is 
holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation, because it is written, 
Be ye holy, for I am holyP 1 Pet. i, 13. There would be no force in 
the exhortation if the holiness ascribed to God were not of the same 
nature as that which is required of us ; for the former is referred to as 
the reason and pattern of the latter. Hence, when we call God holy, 
we mean that there are in his nature certain moral qualities or princi- 
ples analogous to those on account of which men are pronounced holy, 
'that he is perfectly free from the slightest taint of moral pollution, and 
that his will is always conformable to the rectitude of his nature, so 
that he invariably hates sin and loves righteousness. 

The holiness of God is commonly regarded as an attribute distinct 
from all his other perfections ; but this, we think, is a mistake. Holi- 
ness is a complex term, and denotes, not so much a particular attribute, 
as that general character of God which results from all his moral per- 
fections. The holiness of a man is not a distinct quality from his vir- 
tuous dispositions, but signifies the state of his mind and heart as influ- 
enced by these. When we proceed to analyze his holiness, or to show 
in what it consists, we say that he is a devout man, a man of integrity, 
a man faithful to all Jiis engagements and conscientious in all his rela- 
tive duties, a man who abhors sin and loves righteousness. In like 
manner, the holiness of God is not, and cannot be, something different 
from the moral perfections of his nature, but is the general term under 
which all these perfections are comprehended. 

The holiness of God is proved, 



Chap. 2, § 11.] HOLINESS. 169 

1. From the Scriptures. 

"Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holyP Lev. xix, 2. 
"Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the Lord 
our God is holyP Psa. xcix, 9. This attribute was the subject of praise 
to the seraphim who surrounded the throne of Jehovah when he 
appeared in the temple to the prophet Isaiah. "And one cried unto 
another, and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts ; the whole 
earth is full of his glory." Isa. vi, 3. It is said in the Apocalypse, of 
the four living creatures, that "they rest not day and night, saying, 
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty." Rev. iv, 8. 

2. From the Moral Nature with which Man was endowed 
at his Creation. 

Man was not only made a living soul, and endowed with intellectual 
powers, but there was impressed upon him the image of his Maker, 
consisting in the perfect rectitude of his mind, in the order and har- 
mony of his faculties, and in pure and heavenly affections. Thus man, 
in his primitive state, was resplendent with the glory of God's moral 
excellence. This state he might have retained ; for, to sirppose that his 
power was not adequate to his circumstances, would be to make God 
the author of sin. The fall of man was not owing to the want of any- 
thing which God ought to have done for him, but he voluntarily yielded 
to temptation, disregarding the considerations which would have coun- 
teracted its influence. 

3. From the Nature and Design of the Law which was orig- 
inally given to Man. 

As to the nature of this law, it is pure and holy. It forbids sin in all 
its modifications : in its most refined as well as in its grossest forms, the 
taiut of the mind as well as the pollution of the body, the secret appro- 
bation of sin as well as the external act, the transient look of desire, 
and every irregular emotion. While it commands us to place a guard 
upon the avenues by which temptation might enter, it enjoins the 
strictest care of the heart, and calls upon us to destroy the seed before 
it has grown. " The law is holy, and the commandment holy." Rom. 
vii, 12. 

The design of the law was to retain man in a state of innocence and 
purity. It was sanctioned by promises and threatenings, and thus, while 
it taught him his duty, it actuated him to obedience by the hope of 
reward, and deterred him from sin by the fear of punishment. In this, 
therefore, we see a proof both of God's care for man and of his regard 
to holiness. 

4. From the indications of Providence in the government of 
the Moral World. 

Let us here notice, in the first place, the natural checks which God 
has placed upon sin, and the natural encouragements which he has held 
out to the practice of virtue, for in these we clearly perceive his regard 



170 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

to the interests of holiness. It is certain that various affections and 
actions have been enjoined upon all rational creatures under the general 
name of righteousness, and their contraries have been prohibited. It 
is also a matter of constant experience and observation, that the good 
of society is promoted only by what is commanded, and injured by what 
is forbidden ; and that every individual derives, by the very law of his 
nature, benefit and happiness from rectitude, and injury and misery 
from vice. This constitution of human nature is, therefore, an indica- 
tion that the Maker and Ruler of men formed them with the intent that 
they should avoid vice and practice virtue ; and that the former is the 
object of his aversion, the latter of his regard. 

We notice, secondly, that God has manifested his holiness, and his 
infinite abhorrence of sin, by the exercise of his punitive justice. When 
angels rebelled against him they were cast down to hell. When our 
first parents disobeyed the Divine command they were expelled from 
Paradise. When the antediluvian world sinned against God he over- 
whelmed them in the waters of the deluge. Upon Sodom and Gomor- 
rah he rained down fire and brimstone ; and when his chosen people 
indulged in vice, or forsook his worship, he delivered them into the 
hands of their enemies. Truly, then, God is holy. 

5. From the work of Redemption. 

It is this that dispelled the cloud which sin had spread over the char- 
acter of God, revealing him in all his glory as the moral governor of 
the world. In the person of the Redeemer we have an exemplification 
of that holiness in which man was created, and to which he must be 
restored, in order that he may be admitted to eternal life. In the 
sufferings and death of Christ, as an atonement for sin, we have a 
demonstration both of the inflexible justice of God and of his infinite 
compassion toward the guilty. The immediate design of the atonement 
was to meet the claims of God's holy law; but the ultimate design 
was to restore men to that state of holiness from which they had fallen. 
The means were of the most wonderful and unexpected kind — the sub- 
stitution and sufferings of a Divine person — the obedience and crucifix- 
ion of the Lord of glory. He "gave himself for us, that he might 
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, 
zealous of good works." Titus ii, 14. It follows, therefore, that holiness 
must be infinitely acceptable to God, and that he is an infinitely holy 
being, since he resorted to this extraordinary method of re-establishing 
holiness in our world. 

§ 12. The Goodness of God. 

In the investigation of this Divine attribute it will be proper, in the 
first place, to make some general observations explanatory of its 
nature; and, secondly, to adduce the proofs by which the goodness 
of God is established. 



Chap. 2, § 12.] GOODNESS. 171 

I. The Nature of the Divine Goodness. 

Goodness, when it is considered as a distinct attribute of God, signi- 
fies benevolence, or a disposition to communicate happiness. From an 
inward principle of good- will, God exerts his omnipotence in diffusing 
happiness through the universe in proportion to the different capacities 
with which he has endowed his creatures, and according to the direc- 
tion of his infinite wisdom. Here we may observe, 

1. That the goodness of God, according as it terminates upon 
different objects, admits of different denominations. When it confers 
happiness without merit, it is called grace ; when it commiserates the 
distressed, it is pity • when it supplies the indigent, it is bounty ; when 
it bears with offenders, it is patience or long-suffering/ and when 
it pardons the guilty, it is mercy. These, therefore, are not to be 
regarded as distinct attributes of God, but as various modes according 
to which he manifests his goodness to his creatures. 

2. That goodness in God is represented as goodness of nature, as 
one of his essential perfections, and not as an accidental or occasional 
affection. He is thus set infinitely above the imaginary gods of the 
heathen, whose benevolence was occasional, limited, and often dis- 
turbed by contrary passions. Such were the best views of pagans; 
but to us a being of a far different character is manifested as our 
Creator and Lord. One of his appropriate and distinguishing names, 
as proclaimed by himself to Moses, signifies, " The gracious One," and 
imports goodness in the principle ; and another, " The all-sufficient and 
all-bountiful pourer forth of all good,'''' and expresses goodness in 
action. 

3. That the goodness of God is efficient and inexhaustible. It 
reaches every fit case, it supplies all possible want, and endures for- 
ever. As the sun sheds his rays upon the surrounding worlds, and 
enlightens and cherishes the whole creation without being diminished 
in splendor, so God imparts without being exhausted, and though ever 
giving, has yet infinitely more to give. 

4. That God takes pleasure in the exercise of his goodness. It 
is not reluctantly or coldly imparted, nor is it stintedly measured out. 
He "is rich unto all that call upon him." He "giveth to all men 
liberally, and upbraideth not." He is ready to do for us " exceeding 
abundantly above all that we ask or think." It is under these views 
that the Scriptures afford so much encouragement to prayer, and lay 
so strong a ground for absolute trust in God. His goodness throws a 
mild and tranquilizing luster over the majestic attributes of his nature, 
and presents them to us under a friendly aspect. It enables us to 
regard him not only as a Sovereign, but as a Father. It causes us to 
feel emotions of gratitude and love, rising in harmony with sentiments 
of veneration, and encourages us to supplicate his favor and submit to 
his control. 



172 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

II. Proofs by which the Goodness of God is established. 

These are so numerous that they cannot all be adduced, nor will our 
limits allow us to pursue the argument to any great length. The most 
that we can do is to present a few of the most obvious proofs in sup- 
port of the Divine goodness. We may argue it, 

1. From the plain and positive declarations of Scripture.— -When 
Moses prayed, " I beseech thee, show me thy glory," Jehovah replied, 
" I will make all my goodness pass before thee," as if he accounted 
this attribute most glorious to himself. Thus he proclaimed his own 
name : " The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffer- 
ing, and abundant in goodness and truth." Exod. xxxiv, 6. This 
description of the Divine character is confirmed throughout the whole 
system of revelation. " O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good ; 
for his mercy endureth forever." 1 Chron. xvi, 34. " The earth is full 
of the goodness of the Lord." Psa. xxxiii, 5. " O taste and see that 
the Lord is good." Psa. xxxiv, 8. "For thou, Lord, art good, and 
ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon 
thee." Psa. lxxxvi, 5. "The Lord is good to all; and his tender mer- 
cies are over all his works." Psa. cxlv, 9. 

2. From the fact of creation. — When we consider God as possess- 
ing in himself all possible perfection and felicity, and as being inde- 
pendent of all creatures, we may ask, What motive could have induced 
him to exert his power in giving life to so many orders of beings, and 
in fitting up the earth to be a convenient habitation for them, but pure 
and unmixed goodness — a desire to communicate happiness to other 
beings ? He did not perforni the work of creation by a necessity of 
nature, as the sun gives light, or as a fountain pours out its waters ; 
but in consequence of counsel and design. As a free agent, he 
exerted his power to such an extent, and in such a variety of ways, 
as seemed agreeable to himself. Of the counsels of God we are not 
competent judges, and it would, therefore, be presumptuous in us to 
affirm that benevolence was the only motive to the work of creation ; 
but we are safe in concluding that the diffusion of happiness was its 
primary design. What other idea is , suggested by the contemplation 
of a system so regular and beautiful in all its parts, and teeming with 
life and enjoyment ? Had not the nature of God been communicative 
he would have remained alone ; but now he beholds from his throne a 
scale of beings, ascending from the insect to the archangel, all rejoicing 
in conscious existence, and partaking of the riches of his liberality. 

3. From the state in which living creatures are made. — They are 
relatively perfect ; that is, they are all perfectly fitted for their various 
places in creation, their peculiar modes of life, and the purposes which 
they were designed to serve. They possess everything that is neces- 
sary for the preservation of life, for defense, for the procuring of food, 
and for motion from place to place. Had we found living creatures 



Chap. 2, §12.] GOODNESS. 173 

that were destitute of any of those members and organs of sense on 
which their safety and comfort depended, as birds without wings, 
fishes without fins, or beasts without legs, we might have supposed 
that the Creator intended them to languish in misery and perish ; but 
the contrary conclusion must be drawn from the provision which has 
been evidently made for the comfortable subsistence of animated 
nature. He who has bestowed life has rendered it a gift worthy 
of himself, by associating with it a variety of conveniences and 
pleasures. 

4. From the abundant provision which God has made for the toants 
of his creatures. — " The eyes of all wait upon thee ; and thou givest 
them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and satis- 
fiest the desire of every living thing." Psa. cxlv, 15, 16. With the 
care and bounty of a father, he provides for all the members of his 
family. The various species of animals differ from one another as 
much in their taste as in their form. The food that sustains one will 
not nourish another ; and what one eagerly seeks another rejects with 
disgust. Substances offensive to our senses, and which if taken into 
our stomachs would be noxious, furnish wholesome and delicious nutri- 
ment to creatures differently constituted. Thus God manifests his 
goodness in providing for every living creature its appropriate ali- 
ment; for, though the guests at the table of Providence have no 
community of interests and feelings, yet they all find suitable enter- 
tainment. Not one of them goes away disappointed, for our " heavenly 
Father feedeth them." 

5. From the variety of natural pleasures tchich God has provided for 
the animal creation. — Every creature capable of happiness, that comes 
immediately from the forming hand of God, is placed in circumstances 
of positive felicity ; and by associating happiness with animal existence 
he has made life truly a blessing, and has acted in the character of 
benevolence. There seems, indeed, to be a high degree of pleasure 
attached to simple existence, as we may judge from the lively motions 
of young animals. These motions appear to have no specific object, as 
the friskings 'of a lamb, for example, but to proceed from an indescrib- 
able satisfaction which animals experience in the possession of life and 
activity. The goodness of God is farther displayed in the pleasures 
which animals derive from the gratification of their natural appetites, and 
from pursuing their instinctive propensities. When in summer the air 
is filled with myriads of insects, which are almost constantly on the 
wing, wheeling in sportive circles, we have an evidence of the delight 
with Avhich they pass their transitory duration, and a proof of the Divine 
beneficence. Their enjoyment is merely sensitive, but it is the only 
kind of which they are capable ; and it is goodness, rich in its treasures 
and minute in its attentions, which thus adapts itself to every living 
nature. 



174 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

What has been said relates chiefly to the condition of the lower ani- 
mals ; but we will now proceed to argue the goodness of God, 

6. From his dispensations to Man. — As this is a subject of vast 
extent, the reader will at once perceive that we can only present a hasty 
sketch of the argument, leaving him to fill up the outline by his own 
reflections. Let us then notice, 

(1.) Man's original state and condition. — Though created last, he 
was not least. A high rank was assigned to him in the scale of being. 
As to his body, it was " fearfully and wonderfully made." In his intel- 
lectual powers he was placed infinitely above every other terrestrial 
creature. He possessed understanding and reason, and had a knowl- 
edge of himself and his Maker, and of the various relations which sub- 
sisted between them. He was also endowed with a moral nature, with 
innate rectitude, a love of holiness, and a strong desire to know and 
serve God. He therefore enjoyed, under the smile of his Maker, a felic- 
ity incomparably greater, both in kind and degree, than that of the 
inferior creatures. The place of his abode corresponded with the dignity 
of his character and with the peculiarities of his constitution. In the 
garden of Paradise, which the hand of God prepared for man, there 
was nothing wanting that could minister to his good or afford him com- 
fort — all was beauty, and melody, and delight. 

Again, God placed man under moral government. He gave him a 
good and holy law, promising to reward his obedience with everlasting 
felicity. Obedience, indeed, was a debt which he owed his Creator ; so 
that, though he had fulfilled the whole law, he should have had no claim 
to remuneration. True, man lost the noble prize which was set before 
him ; but that event does not in any degree obscure the evidence of 
benignity in God, from which the promise of it proceeded. Even at this 
distance we ought to look back with grateful emotions upon the hope which 
animated our first progenitor in the commencement of his career, and 
the blessedness which might have descended as an inheritance to his 
children. Now, if we look at these facts, either separately or taken 
together, we will be forced to the conclusion that God intended the hap- 
piness of man, and that, therefore, he is rich in goodness. But we may 
look at man, 

(2.) In his present fallen condition. — When he transgressed the' law 
of his Creator a dispensation of unmixed wrath might have commenced. 
And when for wise reasons God suspended the infliction of the threat- 
ened penalty, and permitted the offender to live, he might have doomed 
him and his posterity to a life of extreme misery ; but we find it far 
otherwise. Though our world is a world of sinners, yet it is one in 
which the goodness of God is gloriously displayed. It is especially for 
man that the sun pours out a flood of light and genial heat ; that the 
earth is endowed with unceasing powers of fertility ; and that life and 
health are borne upon the wings of the wind. What a delightful view 



Chap. 2, § 12.] GOODNESS. 175 

of the Divine goodness is given by the regular succession of the seasons, 
the opening buds and blossoms of spring, the luxuriant growth of sum- 
mer, and the matured fruits and rich harvests of autumn ! Surely God 
has not left " himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us 
rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and 
gladness." Acts xiv, 17. 

The goodness of God appears also in the provision which he has 
made for the gratification of our senses. We experience that food not 
only satisfies the appetite of hunger and nourishes our bodies, but also 
gratifies our taste. Now this pleasure is not at all necessary to the 
great design of food. It might be perfectly tasteless, without any 
diminution of its nutritive quality ; but the taste is superadded by our 
Maker to render it pleasant as well as useful, and clearly shows his atten- 
tion to our animal comfort. The same conclusion may be drawn from 
the gratification of other senses. There is beauty prepared for the eye, 
music for the ear, and sweet perfumes for the sense of smelling. But 
why is it that we are thus so agreeably affected by natural objects ? 
ISTot because it renders them more useful, but more attractive ; not 
because it sustains life, but imparts to it a higher relish. 

It is here urged, as an objection to the doctrine which we have advo- 
cated, that the globe, as the residence of man, has its inconveniences 
and positive evils. This is admitted. It has its extremes of cold and 
heat ; its earthquakes, volcanoes, tempests, and inundations ; its sterility 
in some places, which wears down man with labor ; and its exuberance 
of vegetable and animal life in others, which generates diseases, or gives 
birth to annoying and destructive animals. The diseases of the human 
race, their general poverty, their universal sufferings and cares, and 
their short life and painful dissolution, must all be acknowledged. 

It was to account for such evils as these that the ancient philosophers 
supposed the world to be governed by two contrary deities. They 
could not see how a benevolent being could be the author of natural 
evil, and hence they ascribed everything of this kind to an evil god. 
We, however, who enjoy the light of the Scriptures, can solve this ques- 
tion without difficulty. We acknowledge that there are real evils in the 
world ; but we contend that their existence is not inconsistent with the 
benevolence of the Author of nature, because the world in which they 
are found is inhabited by sinful beings. Physical evil is the conse- 
quence of moral evil. Had man continued in his original state, natural 
evil would be unaccountable ; but no one who believes that God is just 
can wonder that suffering should be the attendant of guilt. God is holy 
as well as benevolent, and his goodness ought to be considered, not as 
a disposition to confer happiness indiscriminately, but to confer it upon 
proper objects. We are placed under a mixed dispensation of mercy 
and judgment. God exercises much patience and long-suffering toward 
men, but he also gives tokens of his displeasure ; and the true ground 



176 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. [Book II. 

of surprise is, not that there is a portion of evil in their lot, but that 
there is so much good ; because they deserve the former, but are alto- 
gether unworthy of the latter. 

But with all the evils which belong to our condition, we cannot but 
acknowledge that physical good greatly preponderates. In general the 
days of health are many, and those of pain and sickness few. Enjoy- 
ment of one kind or other is within the reach of all ; and even in condi- 
tions which seem to be most unfavorable to it, there are sources of sat- 
isfaction of which others are not aware. The poor have their pleasures 
as well as the rich ; the laboring classes as well as those who are living 
at ease. All esteem existence a blessing, and suicide is committed only 
when the mind is diseased, or when the instinctive love of life is over- 
come by the extremity of pain, or the dread of some intolerable evil. 
The state even of fallen man bears ample testimony to the goodness of 
his Maker. It is, upon the whole, a happy world in which we live, 
although it is a world of sinners. God displays before our eyes the 
riches of his goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering.* 

There are two other considerations which ought not to be overlooked 
in this connection. The first is, that positive evils are mitigated by 
various alleviations, and are often connected with beneficent ends. The 
necessity of labor obliges us to occupy time usefully, which is both a 
source of enjoyment and a preventive of much evil. Familiarity and 
habit render many circumstances tolerable which at first sight we con- 
ceive to be necessarily the sources of wretchedness. Pain teaches vigilance 
and caution, and renders its remission in returning health a source of 
higher enjoyment ; while the process of mortal diseases mitigates our 
natural horror of death. In all this there is surely an ample proof and 
an adorable display of the Divine goodness. 

The second consideration is, that man himself is chargeable with far 
the largest share of the miseries of the present life. View men collect- 
ively. Sin, as a ruling habit, is not necessary. The means of repressing 
its inward motions, and of restraining its outward acts, have been fur- 
nished to all mankind ; and if the miseries which are the effects of volun- 
tary vice were all removed, comparatively few would remain in the 
world. Oppressive governments, private wrongs, wars, jealousies, 
intemperance, and all their consequent evils, would disappear. 

But besides the removal of so many evils, how greatly would the 
sum of positive happiness be increased ! Peace, security, and industry 
would cover the earth with fruits in sufficient abundance for all. Intel- 
lectual improvement would yield the pleasures of knowledge. Arts 
would multiply the comforts, and mitigate many of the most wasting 
toils of life. General benevolence would unite men in warn affections 
and friendships, productive of innumerable reciprocal offices of kindness, 
and piety would crown all with the pleasures of pure devotion, remov- 
* See Dick's Theology, Lecture 24. 



Chap. 2, § 12.] GOODNESS. 177 

ing every annoying passion and tormenting fear, and inspiring its sub- 
jects with a blissful hope of a better state of being. All this is possible. 
If it is not actual, it is the fault of the human race, not of their Maker ; 
and his goodness is not to be questioned because they are perverse. 
* We may direct our attention, 

(3.) To what God has done for Man's recovery. — It is in the plan of 
human redemption, that he has most gloriously evinced the perfection of 
his goodness — goodness beyond all calculation, immense and infinite! 
It is on this subject, more than on any other, that we are constrained to 
cry out in profound admiration, "God is love. n The whole scheme 
originated from this source, and every part of it declares " the exceed- 
ing riches of his grace, in his kindness toward us, through Christ Jesus." 
Eph. ii, 7. 

It is impossible to set a proper estimate upon the goodness of God, 
as manifested in the work of human redemption; but if we would 
make any considerable approach toward it we must consider, I. The 
gift bestowed: "He gave his only begotten Son." John iii, 16. 2. The 
manner in which Christ effected our redemption : " He took upon him 
the form of a servant, and was make in the likeness of men ; and being 
found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil, ii, 7, 8. 3. The depth of 
misery from which we were rescued : " Christ hath redeemed us from 
the curse of the lawP Gal. iii, 13. 4. The height of bliss to which we 
are raised : " peace with God " here, and " everlasting life " hereafter. 
And, 5. The means which are still in operation to bring men to the 
enjoyment of this great salvation, the institutions of the Gospel, and 
the saving influences of the Holy Spirit. Who can take a survey of this 
wonderful system of human recovery and call in question the goodness 
of God? 

Such are the adorable perfections of the ever-blessed God, which are 
distinctly revealed to us in his Word ; but in addition to these there 
are other excellences, ascribed to him in a more general way, which 
serve to heighten our conceptions of his character, and to set before the 
humbled and awed spirit of man an overwhelming height and depth of 
majesty and glory. 

God is perfect. We are thus taught to ascribe to him every natural 
and moral excellence which we can conceive. Every attribute in him 
is perfect in its kind, and is the most elevated of its kind. It is perfect 
in its degree, not falling in the least below the standard of the highest 
excellence either in our conceptions, or those of angels, or in the possi- 
ble nature of things. 

God is all-sufficient. This is another of those declarations of 
Scripture which exalt our views of God into a mysterious, unbounded, 
and undefined amplitude from himself eternally rising out of his own 

12 



178 THE TRINITY IN UNITY. [Book II. 

perfection, for himself so that he is all to himself, and depends upon 
no other being, and for all that communication, however large and 
however lasting, on which the whole universe depends. The same vast 
thought is expressed by St. Paul in the phrase, " All in all." 

God is unsearchable. All that we see or hear of him is but a faint 
and shadowy manifestation. Beyond the highest glory there is yet an 
unpierced and unapproachable light, a track of intellectual and moral 
splendor, untraveled by the thoughts of the adoring spirits who are 
nearest his throne. " Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfec- 
tion ?" Job xi, 1. " Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and 
his greatness is unsearchable." Psa. cxlv, 3. 

"We cannot close this chapter in a more suitable manner than in the 
adoring language of the psalmist : "Blessed be the Lord God, the God 
of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious 
name forever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory ; Amen, 
and Amen. Psa. Ixxii, 18, 19. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 



We now approach this great mystery of our faith, the doctrine of the 
Trinity, for the declaration of which we are exclusively indebted to the 
Sacred Scriptures. Not only is it incapable of proof a priori, but it 
derives no direct confirmatory evidence from the existence and wise 
and orderly arrangement of the works of God. It stands, however, on 
the unshaken foundation of his own word, that revelation which he has 
given of himself in both Testaments ; and if we see no traces of it in the 
works of creation, as we do of his existence and perfections, the reason 
is, that creation in itself could not be the medium of manifesting or of 
illustrating it. 

Among the leading writers in defense of the Trinity there are some 
shades of difference in opinion as to what constitutes the Unity of the 
three persons in the Godhead. The scheme which seems to comport 
most exactly with Scripture is that of Bishop Pearson, with whom 
Bishop Bull and Dr. Owen also agree. It is thus expressed by Dr. 
Doddridge : " Though God the Father is the fountain of the Deity, the 
whole Divine nature is communicated from the Father to the Son, and 
from both to the Spirit, yet so as that the Father and the Son are not 
separate, nor separable from the divinity, but do still exist in it, and 
3,re most intimately united to it." 

The term person signifies in ordinary language an intelligent being. 



Chap 3, § 1.] THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 179 

Two or more persons, therefore, in the strict philosophical sense, would 
be two or more distinct intelligent beings. If the term person were so 
applied to the Trinity in the Godhead a plurality of gods would follow ; 
while if taken in what has been called apolitical sense, personality would 
be no more than relation, arising out of office. Personality in God is, 
therefore, not to be understood in either of the above senses if we pay 
respect to the testimony of Scripture. God is one being. But he is 
more than one being in three relations; for personal acts, such as we 
ascribe to distinct persons, and which most unequivocally characterize 
personality, are ascribed to each person of the Trinity. The Scripture 
doctrine therefore is, that the persons are not separate, but distinct, 
and that they are so united as to be but one God. In other words, 
that the Divine nature exists under the personal distinction of Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, and that these three have equally, and in common 
with one another, the nature and perfections of supreme divinity. This 
appears to be the true simple doctrine of the Trinity, when stripped of 
refined and learned distinctions. As to the manner in which three 
persons are united in the Godhead, it is granted to be incomprehens- 
ible ; but so is God himself, as is also every essential attribute of his 
nature. 

It is objected by some that the term person is not used in the Scrip- 
tures, and that, therefore, we should not employ it in connection with 
this subject. To such it may be sufficient to reply, that if what is 
clearly taught in Scripture is compendiously expressed by this term, 
and cannot so well be expressed, except by an inconvenient periphrasis, 
it ought to be retained. But is there not a scriptural warrant for the 
term itself? Our translators so concluded when in Heb. i, 3, they 
called the Son " the express image " of the Father's "person." The 
original word is vTrooraoig, which signifies substance, essence, being ; 
something of which we can say, it is, in opposition to mere appear- 
ance, and was understood by the Greek fathers to signify a person, 
though not exclusively so used. 

The sense of vttogtclcjic in this passage must be considered, by all 
who allow the divinity of the Son of God, as fixed by the apostle's 
argument. For the Son being called " the express image " of the 
Father, a distinction between the Son and the Father is thus unques- 
tionably expressed; but if there is but one God, and if the Son is 
Divine, the distinction here expressed cannot be a distinction of essence, 
and must, therefore, be a personal distinction. 

Having made these preliminary remarks, we are now prepared to 
enter upon a more particular ^investigation of the doctrine of the 
Trinity. We will consider, first, its vast importance in the system 
of revealed truth; and, secondly, the Scripture proofs by which it is 
established. 



180 THE TRINITY IN UNITY. [Book II. 

§ 1. The Importance of the Doctrine. 

To consider the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity is the more 
necessary because it has been represented as of little consequence, or 
as a matter of useless speculation. Thus Dr. Priestley: "All that can 
be said for it is, that the doctrine, however improbable in itself, is 
necessary to explain some particular texts of Scripture ; and that, if it 
had not been for those particular texts we should have found no want 
for it."* That the reader may see the importance of this revealed doc- 
trine, he is requested to weigh the following considerations : 

1. The knowledge op God is fundamental to religion; and as 
we know nothing of him but what he has revealed, and as these reve- 
lations have all moral ends, and are designed to promote piety, and not 
to gratify curiosity, all that he has revealed of himself in particular 
must partake of that character of fundamental importance which 
belongs to the knowledge of God in the aggregate. Nothing, there- 
fore, can disprove the fundamental importance of the Trinity in Unity 
but that which will prove that it is not a doctrine of Scripture. 

2. It essentially affects our views of God as the object of 
our worship, whether we regard him as one in essence and one in 
person, or admit that in the unity of the Godhead there are three 
equally Divine persons. These are two very different conceptions, 
both of which cannot be true. The God of those who deny the 
Trinity is not the God of those who worship the Trinity in Unity, so 
that either the former or the latter worship a being which does not 
exist ; and, so far as it respects any reality in the object, they might as 
well worship a pagan idol. 

But as the object of our worship is affected by our respective views 
on this great subject, so also is its character. For if the doctrine of 
the Trinity is true, then those who deny it do not worship the God of 
the Scriptures, but a fiction of their own framing, and are, therefore, 
guilty of idolatry. If it is false, Trinitarians, by paying Divine honors 
to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, are equally guilty of idolatry, 
though in another mode. The importance of the doctrine must, there- 
fore, be obvious to all. 

3. The Doctrine of the Trinity has an intimate connection 
with the subject of Morals. What is morality but conformity to 
the Divine law, which law must take its character from that of its 
Author? The Trinitarian scheme is essentially connected with the 
doctrine of atonement, which depends on the divinity of Christ. It 
acknowledges the fallen and helpless condition of man, the exceeding 
sinfulness of sin, and the' inflexible justice of God. The Unitarian 
theory necessarily excludes atonement, and regards sin as a matter of 

* History of "Early Opinions.'' 



Chap. 3, § 1.] ITS IMPORTANCE. 181 

comparatively trifling moment. It supposes that God is not strict to 
punish sin, and that if punishment does follow it will not be eternal. 
Whether, under these soft and easy views of the law of God, and of 
the evil of transgression, morals can have an equal sanction, or human 
conduct be equally restrained, are points too obvious to be argued. 

But we must not forget that faith in the testimony of God is an 
essential part of morality. To believe is so much a Divine command 
that the highest sanction is connected with it. "He that believeth 
shall be saved ; and he that believeth not shall be damned" It is, 
therefore, an act of duty to believe, because it is an act of obedience ; 
and hence St. Paul speaks of " the obedience of faith." It is of the 
utmost importance, then, that we should know what God has revealed 
as the object of our faith, since the rejection of any revealed truth must 
certainly be visited with punishment ; the law of faith having the same 
authority and the same sanction as the law of works. Thus we see 
the connection of this doctrine with Christian morality, and, conse- 
quently, its great value. 

4. But the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity may be finally 
argued from the manner in which a denial or it would affect 
the credit of the Holy Scriptures. Dr. Priestley allows that this 
doctrine "is necessary to explain some particular texts of Scripture." 
This fact alone is sufficient to mark its importance and to establish its 
truth, especially as it can be shown that these "particular texts " com- 
prehend a very large portion of the sacred volume. If the doctrine of 
a Trinity of Divine persons in the Godhead is true, the style and man- 
ner of the Scriptures are in perfect accordance with the facts in the 
case ; but if the Son and the Holy Spirit were creatures, then would 
the language of the sacred books be most deceptive and dangerous. 
It would be so well adapted to lead men to the belief of falsehood, 
even in fundamental points, and to idolatry itself, that " abominable 
thing " which the Lord hates, that they would lose all claim to be 
regarded as a revelation from the God of truth, and ought rather to 
be shunned than studied. 

If the doctrine of the Trinity is denied, how is it to be accounted for, 
that in the Old Testament God should be spoken of in plural terms, and 
that this plurality should be restricted to thee f How is it that the very 
name Jehovah should be given to each of them, and that repeatedly 
on the most solemn occasions ? How is it that the incarnate Messiah 
should be invested with the loftiest attributes of God ; and that acts 
and characters of unequivocal divinity should be ascribed to the Holy 
Spirit also ? How is it that in the New Testament the name of God 
should be given to both, and that without any intimation that it is used 
in an inferior sense? How is it that, in the very form of initiation 
by baptism into the Church of Christ, the ordinance, which itself is a 
public and solemn profession of faith, is to be performed in the one name 



182 THE TKINITY IN UNITY. [Book II. 

of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? This, if Socinianism were true, would 
be to administer baptism in the name of one God and two creatures ; 
as though the very door of entrance into the Christian Church should 
have been purposely made the gateway into the temple of idolatry ! 

§ 2. The Scripture Proofs. 

In deducing from the sacred volume the doctrine of a Trinity of 
Divine persons in the Unity of the Godhead, our attention will be 
directed to the important fact, 

1. That the one Jehovah of the Bible is frequently desig- 
nated BY PLURAL APPELLATIONS, AND PLURAL POEMS OF SPEECH. 

The very first name under which he is made known to us as the 
Creator of the world is in the plural form. " In the beginning t^rfra," 
Elohim, the Gods , "created the heavens and the earth." Gen. i, 1. 
That the word is plural, is made certain by its being often joined with 
adjectives, pronouns, and verbs plural. But when it can mean nothing 
else than the true God, it is usually joined in its plural form with a sin- 
gular verb; as fc^rfta &ni,*BAKA Elohim, the Gods created. 

This name is plural throughout the whole first chapter of Genesis, 
where it is so often employed, and in a thousand other places. In fact, 
it is rarely used in the singular n^, Eloah. The plural is preferred 
even when the design is to assert, in the most solemn manner, the Unity 
of God. Thus, " Hear, O Israel, the Lord i^rfta," Elohaynu, our 
Gods, " is one Lord." Deut. vi, 4. But this is not the only name which 
is applied in its plural form to the Divine Being. " If I be t^na," 
Adonim, Masters, " where is my fear ?" Mai. i, 6. " Remember 
"paW na," Eth Boeeka, thy Creators, " in the days of thy youth." 
Eccl. xii, 1. "For -pB3> "p^W," Boalaik Osaik, thy Makers is thy 
husbands. Isa. liv, 5. 

Other plural forms of speech also occur when the one true God only 
is spoken of. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our 
likeness." Gen. i, 26. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is 
become as one of us." Gen. iii, 22. These instances need not be multi- 
plied ; they are common forms of speech in the sacred Scriptures, which 
no criticism has been able to resolve into mere idioms, and which only 
the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Unity of the Godhead can 
satisfactorily explain. 

This argument, however, does not contain the strength of the case ; 
for if these plural titles and forms of expression were blotted out, the 
evidence of a plurality of Divine persons in the Godhead would still 
remain in its strongest form. This evidence is found in the fact, 

2. That the Scriptures speak of three persons, and three per- 
sons ONLY, UNDER DlVINE TITLES. 

It is a remarkable fact, that while the Scriptures maintain, as their 



Chap. 3, § 2.] SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 183 

leading principle, that there is but one God, they so frequently speak 
of three persons, to each of whom they ascribe the peculiar attributes of 
divinity. This being once established, it may be asked which of the 
hypotheses, the Orthodox, the Arian, or the Socinian, agrees best with 
what the Scriptures so plainly teach upon this subject; and whether 
those who confide in the testimony of God, rather than in the opinions 
of men, have not sufficient reason' to distinguish their faith from the 
unbelief of others by avowing themselves Trinitarians* 

(1.) This doctrine is indicated in that solemn form of benediction in 
which the Jewish high pt*iests were commanded to bless the children of 
Israel, and which singularly answers to the apostolic benediction that 
so appropriately closes the solemn services of Christian worship. It is 
given in Num. vi, 24-27 : 

"Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee; 
Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee ; 
Jehovah lift his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." 

If the three members of this form of benediction be attentively con- 
sidered, they will be found to agree respectively to the three persons of 
the Trinity, taken- in the usual order of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
The first member of the formula expresses " the love of God," the 
Father of mercies and Fountain of all good ; the second well comports 
with the redeeming and reconciling " grace of the Lord Jesus Christ;" 
and the last is appropriate to the purity, consolation, and joy which 
are received from "the communion of the Holy Ghost." 

The connection of certain blessings in this form of benediction with 
the Jehovah, mentioned three times distinctly, and those which are 
represented as flowing from the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the 
apostolic form, would be a singular coincidence if it even stood alone ; 
but the light of the same eminent truth breaks forth from other partings 
in the clouds of the early morning of revelation. Hence, 

(2.) The inner part of the Jewish sanctuary was called the holy of 
holies, that is, the holy place of the Holy Ones. The number of these 
is indicated, and limited to three, in that celebrated vision of Isaiah 
which took place in the very abode of the Holy Ones. Before them 
the seraphim vailed their faces, " and one cried unto another, and said, 
Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts." Isa. vi, 3. Here let it be 
observed, that this trine act of adoration, which has been supposed to 
mark a plurality of persons in the object of it, is answered by a voice 
from the excellent glory which overwhelmed the mind of the prophet, 
responding in the same language of plurality in which the doxology of 
the seraphim is expressed. " Also I heard the voice of the Lord, say- 
ing, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us ?" 

But this is not the only evidence that the persons who were addressed, 
* The word rpiac, trinitas, came into use in the second century. 



184 THE TRINITY IN UNITY. [Book II. 

each by his appropriate and equal designation of hoi]/, were the three 
Divine substances in the Godhead. The Being addressed is the " Lord 
of hosts." This phrase, all acknowledge, designates the Father ; but 
the Evangelist John, in manifest reference to this same transaction, 
observes, " These things said Esaias, when he saw his (Christ's) glory 
and spake of him." John xii, 41. In this vision, therefore, we have the 
Son also, whose glory on this occasion the prophet beheld; and St. 
Paul bears testimony to the presence of the Holy Spirit. " Well spake 
the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go 
unto this people and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not under- 
stand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive." Acts xxviii, 
25, 26. These words, quoted from Isaiah, the apostle declares to have 
been spoken by the Holy Ghost ; but Isaiah tells us, that they were 
spoken on this very occasion by the " Lord of hosts." 

Now. let all these circumstances be placed together — the place, the 
holy place of the Holy Ones ; the repetition of the homage, three times 
Holy, holy, holy ; the one Jehovah of hosts, to whom it was addressed ; 
the plural pronoun used by this one Jehovah, us ; the declaration of St. 
John, that on this occasion Isaiah saw the glory of Christ ; and the tes- 
timony of St. Paul, that the Lord of hosts who spoke on that occasion 
was the Holy Ghost ; and the conclusion will not be without most 
powerful authority, both circumstantial and declaratory, that the adora- 
tion Holy, holy, holy, referred to the Divine three in the one essence 
of the Lord of hosts. Accordingly, in the book of Revelation, where 
u the Lamb" is associated with the Father as the object of equal 
homage,, the living creatures, corresponding to the seraphim of the 
prophet, are heard in the same strain, and with the same trine repeti- 
tion, saying, " Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, 
and is to come." Rev. iv, 8. 

(3.) The prophet Isaiah makes this threefold distinction and limita- 
tion. "And now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me." 
Isa. xlviii, 16. The words are manifestly spoken by Messiah, who 
declares himself to be sent by the Lord God, and by his Spirit. Some 
render it, hath sent me and his Spirit, the latter term being also in the 
accusative case. This strengthens the application by bringing the 
phrase nearer to that which is so often used by our Lord when he 
speaks of himself and the Spirit as being sent by the Father. 

Again, " I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts : according to the 
word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my 
Spirit remaineth among you ; fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord of 
hosts ; I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come." 
Hag. ii, 4-7. Here also we have three persons distinctly mentioned, 
the Lord of hosts, his Spirit, and the Desire of all nations. 

(4.) This doctrine is most explicitly taught in the New Testament. 
The passages commonly adduced are familiar to all : " Baptizing them 



Chap. 3, § 2.] SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 185 

in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
Matt, xxviii, 19. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." 2 Cor. 
xiii, 14. There are other passages in which the sacred three, and three 
only, are thus collocated as objects of equal trust and honor, and as 
being equally the fountain and source of grace and benediction. But 
the strongest proof which the Scriptures afford of the doctrine of the 
Trinity is in the fact, 

3. That in numerous instances two persons are spoken of as 
being associated with god in his perfections. 

We have now shown that while the Unity of God is to be considered 
a fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures, the very names of God, as 
given in the revelation which he has made of himself, have plural forms, 
and are connected with plural modes of speech ; that other indications 
of plurality are given in various passages ; and that this plurality is 
restricted to three. On those texts, however, which in their terms 
denote a plurality and a Trinity, we do not wholly or chiefly rely. There 
are multiplied instances in which two distinct persons are spoken of, 
sometimes connectedly and sometimes separately, as being associated 
with God in his incommunicable perfections, and as performing works 
of unequivocal Divine majesty and infinite power; and thus that triunity 
of the Godhead is manifested which the Church has, in all ages, adored 
and magnified. This, then, is the great proof upon which the doctrine 
mainly rests. The first of these two persons is the Son, the second the 
Holy Spirit. 

(1.) Of the Son, it may he observed that he is invested with all the 
titles and attributes of God ; that he is eminently known, both in the 
Old Testament and in the New, as the Son of God ; that he became 
incarnate in our nature, and wrought miracles by his own i^ower ; that 
he authoritatively forgave sin ; that he is seated upon the throne of the 
universe, in the possession of all power in heaven and in earth ; that he 
is worshiped both by men and angels ; and that he will raise the dead 
at the last day, judge the world, and, finally, determine the everlasting- 
state of the righteous and the wicked. 

(2.) As to the Divine character of the Holy Spirit, it is equally explicit. 
To him also are ascribed the names, the attributes, and the works of 
Jehovah ; and, finally, he is associated with the Father and the Son in 
the Christian form of baptism, and in the apostolic form of benediction, 
as being, equally with them, the source and fountain of grace and blessed- 
ness. These decisive points we shall soon proceed to establish by 
express declarations both of the Old and the New Testament. When 
that is done, the argument will then be, that as, on the one hand, there 
is but one God; and as, on the other, three persons are, in unequivocal 
language, and by unequivocal circumstances, declared to be Divine; 
therefore, these three persons are one God. This is the only con- 



186 THE TRINITY IN UNITY. [Book II. 

elusion that can harmonize the declarations of Scripture on this import- 
ant subject. 

Thus the Trinity is asserted, but the Unity of God is not obscured ; 
while his Unity is confessed without a denial of the Trinity. It is not, 
however, the Socinian notion of Unity. Theirs is the Unity of one, 
ours the Unity of three. Nor do we believe, as they seem to suppose, 
that the Divine Essence is divisible, or that it is participated by three 
persons, and shared among them ; but that it is wholly and undividedly 
possessed by each. Whether, therefore, we address our prayers and 
adorations to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, we address the 
same adorable Being, the one living and true God. 

A few remarks on the difficulties in which the doctrine of the Trinity 
is supposed to involve its advocates may properly close this chapter. 

Mere difficulty in conceiving of what is wholly proper and peculiar to 
God forms no objection to a doctrine. It is more rationally to be con- 
sidered as a presumption of its truth, since in the nature of God there 
must be mysteries far above the reach of the human mind. All his 
natural attributes, though of some of them we have images in ourselves, 
are utterly incomprehensible ; and the manner of his existence cannot 
be less so. All attempts, however, to show that the doctrine implies a 
contradiction have failed. A contradiction is only where two contraries 
are predicated of the same thing, and in the same respect. Let this be 
kept in view, and the sophism of our opponents will be easily detected. 
They urge that the same thing cannot be three and one y that is, if the 
proposition has any meaning at all, not in the same respect. The three 
persons cannot be one person, nor can the one God be three Gods. But 
it is no contradiction to say that in different respects the three may be 
one ; that is, that in respect to persons they may be three, and in respect 
to Godhead, essence, or nature, they may be one. 

As for difficulties, we shall certainly not be relieved by running either 
to the Arian or the Socinian hypothesis. The one ascribes the creation 
and government of the world, not to the Deity, but to a creature; for 
however exalted the Arian inferior Deity may be, he is a creature still. 
The other makes a mere man the creator of all things ; for whatever is 
meant by the Word that " was made flesh," he is the very same Word 
by whom " all things were made." 



Chap. 4, §1.] THE DIVINITY OF CHKIST, 187 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE DIVINITY OF CHEIST. 

The result of our observations on the doctrine of the Trinity is, that 
there are three persons in the Divine Essence, or that the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost are the same in substance, and equal in power and 
glory. If we have succeeded in proving that a Trinity is revealed in 
the Scriptures, we might proceed without delay to the consideration of 
other subjects, fully assured that he who redeemed us with his own 
blood, and he who is the Author of our holiness and consolation, are 
not to be ranked among creatures, but are entitled to the same relig- 
ious honor which is due to the Father. There are, however, various 
considerations which point out the propriety of suspending our prog- 
ress, and of engaging in a more minute inquiry into the divinity of the 
Son and of the Holy Spirit. 

The Supreme Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ will be made the 
subject of this chapter. In proof of this doctrine we will proceed to 
show that he existed previous to his incarnation ; that he was the 
Jehovah of the Old Testament ; that to him are ascribed Divine titles, 
Divine attributes, and Divine works; and that he is the object of 
Divine worship. 

§ 1. The JPre-existence of Christ. 

By establishing, on scriptural authority, the pre-existence of our 
Lord, we take the first step in the demonstration of his absolute 
divinity. His pre-existence, indeed, simply considered, does not 
evince his Godhead, and is not, therefore, a proof against the Arian 
hypothesis ; but it destroys the Socinian notion, that he was a mere 
man. To prove that he existed prior to his incarnation, it will only 
be necessary to weigh the following scriptural propositions. 

1. He was before John the Baptist. — "He that cometh after me 
is preferred before me, for he was before me.'''' John i, 15. 

The Socinian exposition is : " The Christ, who is to begin his minis- 
try after me, has, by the Divine appointment, been preferred before 
me, because he is my chief or principal." Thus they interpret the last 
clause, " For he was before me," in the sense of dignity, and not of 
time ; though St. John uses the same word to denote priority of time 
in several places in his Gospel.* The verb in this clause sufficiently 
fixes 7rpo)r6c in the sense of priority of time. Had it referred to the 
* See in the original, John viii, T; xv, 18 ; xx, 4, 8. 



188 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. [Book I. 

rank and dignity of Christ it would not have been rjv, " he was," but 
eon, " he is before me." 

2. He was before Abraham. — Thus our Lord declared : " Before 
Abraham was, I am." John viii, 58. 

Whether the verb u\ii, "I am" may be understood to be equivalent 
to the incommunicable name Jehovah, shall be considered in another 
place. The obvious sense of the passage is, Before Abraham was, or 
was born, I was in existence. Our Lord had declared that Abraham 
rejoiced to see his day. " Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not 
yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?" To this he solemnly 
replied, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." 
I had priority of existence, with a continuation of it to the present 
time. Nor did the Jews mistake his meaning, but being filled with 
indignation at so manifest a claim to divinity, "they took up stones 
to stone him." 

How, then, do the Socinians dispose of this passage? The two 
hypotheses on which they have rested, for one would not suffice, are, 
first, " that Christ existed before Abraham had become, according to 
the import of his name, the Father of many nations ; that is, before the 
Gentiles were called." But this was as true of the Jews with whom 
Christ was conversing as it was of himself. The second is : " Before 
Abraham was born, I am he; that is, the Christ, in the destination and 
appointment of God." But this was not declaring anything that was 
peculiar to Christ ; since the existence, and the part which every one 
of his hearers was to act, were as much in the destination and appoint- 
ment of God as his own. These opinions, therefore, are too absurd to 
require a formal refutation. 

3. Christ came down from Heaven. — Thus he declares: "I am 
the living bread which came down from heaven." John vi, 51. "No 
man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, 
even the Son of man, which is in heaven." John iii, 13. Socinius and 
his early disciples, in order to account for these phrases, supposed that 
Christ, between the time of his birth and entrance upon his office, was 
translated to heaven, and remained there some time, that he might see 
and hear what he was to publish to the world. But modern Socinians, 
finding the unreasonable position of their elder brethren to be entirely 
destitute of proof, resolve the whole into figure. They tell us that our 
Lord's words do not necessarily imply a literal ascent and descent, but 
merely " that he alone was admitted to an intimate knowledge of the 
Divine will, and was commissioned to reveal it to men."* 

In these passages, which so clearly teach the pre-existence of Christ, 
there are two phrases to be accounted for : ascending into heaven, and 
coming down from heaven. If to be " admitted to an intimate knowl- 
edge of the Divine will " were the sense of the former, it would not 
* Belsham's " Calm Inquiry." 



Chap. 4, §1.] PRE-EXISTEKCE. 189 

be true that "no man" had thus ascended but "the Son of man;" 
since Moses and all the prophets in succession had been admitted to a 
knowledge of the Divine counsels, and had been commissioned to reveal 
them to men. Allowing, therefore, the principle of the Socinian gloss, 
it is totally inapplicable to the texts in question, and is, in fact, directly 
refuted by them. 

But their principle of interpretation is false. For, whatever the 
phrase, ascending into heaven, may be supposed to signify, coming 
down from heaven must signify the opposite if we abide by the figure. 
But the latter phrase, they say, means, " to be commissioned to reveal 
the will of God to man."* If so, the two phrases, which are mani- 
festly opposed to each Qther, lose all their opposition in the interpre- 
tation, which is sufficient to show that it is, as to both, entirely 
gratuitous, arbitrary, and contradictory. Now, allowing Socinians 
all they wish to establish as to the first clause — that to go up into 
heaven means to learn and become acquainted with the counsels of 
God — what must follow if they were to reason justly upon their own 
principles ? Plainly this : that to come down from heaven being pre- 
cisely the opposite of the former, must mean to unlearn or to lose the 
knowledge of those counsels. 

Another passage which may be quoted in this connection is John 
vi, 62. Our Lord had told the Jews that he was the bread of life 
which " came down from heaven." This they understood literally, 
and therefore asked : " Is not this the son of Joseph, whose father and 
mother we know ? how is it, then, that he saith, I came down from 
heaven." His disciples, too, so understood his words, for they also 
"murmured." But our Lord, so far from removing that impression, 
strengthens the assertion, and makes his profession a stumbling-block 
still more formidable. " Doth this offend you ? What and if ye shall 
see the Son of man ascend up where he was before ?" The occasion, 
therefore, fixes the sense of the passage beyond all perversion. 

4. Christ claims a glorious existence antecedent to the world. 
— " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the 
glory which I had with thee before the world was." John xvii, 5. What- 
ever this glory was, it was possessed by Christ " before the world 
was;" or, as he afterward expresses it, "before the foundation of the 
world." But if he was with the Father, and had a glory with him 
" before the world was," then had he an existence, not only before 
his incarnation, but before the very " foundation of the world." 

The Socinian gloss is, " The glory which I had with thee, in thy 
immutable decree, before the world was, or which thou didst 
decree before the world was, to give me." But the words ren- 
dered "which I had with thee" cannot bear any snch sense, and 
the occasion was too peculiar to admit of any mystical, forced, or para- 
* Belsham's "Calm Inquiry." 



190 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

bolic modes of speech. It was in the hearing of his disciples, just 
before he went out into the garden, that these words were spoken. 
There, in a solemn act of devotion, he declares to the Father that he 
had a glory with him before the world was, and prays that he might 
be reinstated in that former glory. The language is so explicit, that if 
there were no other proof in the whole "New Testament of the pre-exist- 
ence of Christ, this single passage would establish it. 

Whatever, therefore, the true nature of our Lord Jesus Christ may 
be, we have at least discovered, from testimonies which no criticism 
and no unlicensed and paraphrastic comments have been able to shake 
or obscure, that he had an existence previous to his incarnation, and 
previous to the very " foundation of the world." 

§ 2. Christ, the Jehovah of the Old Testament. 

In reading the Scriptures of the Old Testament, it is impossible not 
to mark with serious attention the frequent visible appearances of God 
to the patriarchs and prophets, and, what is still more singular, his 
visible residence in a cloud of glory, both among the Jews in the wil- 
derness, and in their sacred tabernacle and temple. The fact of such 
appearances cannot be disputed, and in order to point out its bearing 
upon the divinity of Christ it will be necessary to establish three prop- 
ositions, namely : 

1. The person who made these appearances was truly a Divine 
person. — The proofs of this are, that he bears the name of Jehovah, 
God, and other Divine appellations ; and that he dwelt among the Isra- 
elites as the object of their supreme worship. 

(1.) He bears the name of Jehovah and God. — When the angel of 
the Lord found Hagar in the wilderness, " she called the name of Jeho- 
vah that spake unto her, Thou God seest me." Gen. xvi, 13. One of 
the three persons in human form who appeared to Abraham in the 
plains of Mamre is called Jehovah. "And Jehovah said, Shall I hide 
from Abraham that thing which I do ?" Two of the three departed, 
but he to whom this high appellation is given remained ; for "Abraham 
stood yet before Jehovah." This Jehovah is also called by Abraham 
"the Judge of all the earth," and the account of the solemn inter- 
view is thus given by the sacred historian : " The Lord (Jehovah) 
went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham." Gen. 
xviii, 33. 

This Divine person appeared to Jacob on several occasions. After 
one of these manifestations he said, " Surely the Lord (Jehovah) is 
in this place ;" and after another, " I have seen God face to face." 
Gen. xxviii, 16; xxxii, 30. The same Jehovah was made visible to 
Moses, and gave him his commission. " God said unto Moses, I am 
that I am : and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, 



Chap. 4, §2.] THE JEHOVAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 191 

I am hath sent me unto you." Exod. iii, 14. The same Jehovah went 
before the Israelites in a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire 
by night; and by him the law was given, amid terrible displays of 
power and majesty, from Mount Sinai. "Did ever people hear the 
voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, 
and live ?" Deut. iv, 33. 

(2.) This Jehovah dwelt among the Israelites as the object of their 
supreme worship. — He commanded them to build him a sanctuary, that 
he might reside among them ; and when it was erected he took posses- 
sion of it in a visible form, which was called " the glory of the Lord." 
There the Shechinah, the visible token of the presence of Jehovah, 
rested above the ark. There he was consulted on all occasions, and 
there he received their worship from age to age. Both in their taber- 
nacle and temple services he was constantly celebrated as Jehovah, the 
God of Israel, the God of their fathers, and the object of their own 
exclusive hope and trust. 

To this it is objected, that this personage is also called " the angel 
of the Lord." This is true ; but if " the angel of the Lord " is the 
same person as he who is called Jehovah, the same as he who gave the 
law in his own name, then it is clear that the term " angel " does 
not, in this application of it, indicate a created being, that it is not a 
designation of nature but of office, and that it is not inconsistent with 
absolute divinity. 

It will be easy to show that Jehovah and " the angel of the Lord," 
when used in this eminent sense, denote the same person. Jacob says, 
" The angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, I am the God of 
Bethel." Gen. xxxi, 11, 12. Upon his death-bed he calls this same 
Divine person both God and Angel. " The God which fed me all my 
life long unto this day, the angel which redeemed me from all evil, 
bless the lads." Gen. xlviii, 15, 16. The prophet Hosea says of Jacob 
that "He had power with God; yea, he had power over the angel, 
and prevailed. He found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us ; 
even the Lord God of hosts." Hos. xii, 3-5. Here the same person is 
called God, Angel, and Lord God of hosts. "The angel of the Lord 
called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself 
have I sworn, saith the Lord, (Jehovah,) for because thou hast done 
this thing." Gen. xxii, 15, 16. It was the angel of the Lord that 
appeared to Moses in a flame of fire, but it was this same angel that 
said to him, " I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the 
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Exod. iii, 6. St. Stephen, in 
alluding to this part of the history of Moses, in his speech before the 
council, says, "There appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai 
an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire," showing that this phraseology 
was in use among the Jews in his day, and that this angel was regarded 
as the Jehovah who gave the law ; for he adds, Moses " was in the 



192 THE DIVINITY OF CHEIST. [Book II. 

Church in the wilderness, with the angel which spoke to him in Mount 
Sinai." 

These Scriptures prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the 
angel of Jehovah is constantly represented as Jehovah himself, and, 
therefore, as a Divine person. Those, however, who deny the divinity 
of our Lord, endeavor to evade the force of this argument, according to 
their respective creeds. The Arians, who think the appearing angel to 
have been Christ, but who yet deny his being Jehovah, assume that 
this glorious but created being personated the Deity, and as his 
embassador and representative, spoke by his authority, and took his 
name. 

The answer to this is, that though embassadors speak in the name of 
their masters, they do not apply the names and titles of their masters 
to themselves ; that created angels, mentioned in Scripture as appearing 
to men, declare that they were sent by God, and never personate him ; 
that the prophets uniformly acknowledge their commission to be from 
God ; that God himself asserts, " Jehovah is my name, and my glory 
will I not give to another /" and yet, that the appearing angel calls himself, 
as we have seen, by this incommunicable name in almost innumerable 
instances ; and that he claims and receives the exclusive worship both 
of the patriarchs, to whom he occasionally appeared, and the Jews, 
among whom he visibly resided for ages. To suppose him therefore to 
to be a created being, is to suppose the religion of the Bible to be a 
system of idolatry. 

If the Arian account of the angel of Jehovah is untenable, the Socin- 
ian notion will be found to be equally unsupported, and indeed ridicu- 
lous. Dr. Priestley assumes the marvelous doctrine of "occasional 
personality," and thinks that " in some cases angels were nothing more 
than temporary appearances, and no permanent beings, the mere organs 
of the Deity, assumed for the purpose of making himself known." He 
speaks therefore of " a power occasionally emitted, and then taken back 
again into its source ;" of this power being vested with a temporary 
personality, and thinks this possible ! Little cause had the doctor and 
his adherents to talk of the mystery and absurdity of the doctrine of the 
Trinity, who can make a p)erson out of a power, emitted and then drawn 
back again to its source ; a temporary person, without individual subsist- 
ence ! The wildnexs of this fiction is its own refutation. But that the 
angel of Jehovah was not this temporary occasional person, is made 
evident by Jacob's calling him the angel of the Lord who had fed him 
all his life long ; and by this also that the same person who was called 
by himself and by the Jews " the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of 
Jacob," was the God of the chosen people in all their generations. 

Mr. Belsham's theory is that " the angel of the Lord was the visible 
symbol of the Divine presence ;" and this opinion commonly obtains 
among Socinians. This notion, however, involves a whole train of 



Chap. 4, § 2.] THE JEHOVAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 193 

absurdities. The phrase, the " angel of Jehovah," is not accounted for 
by a visible symbol, unless that symbol be considered as distinct from 
Jehovah. We have then the name Jehovah given to a cloud, a light, a 
fire. The fire is the angel of the Lord, and yet the angel of the Lord 
calls to Moses out of the fire. This visible symbol says to Abraham, 
" By myself I have sworn," for these are said to be the words of the 
angel of Jehovah ; and this angel, the visible symbol, spake to Moses 
on Mount Sinai. Such are the absurdities which flow from error! 
Most clearly, therefore, is it determined on the testimony of several 
Scriptures, and by necessary induction from the circumstances attend- 
ing the numerous appearances of the angel of Jehovah in the Old Test- 
ament, that the person thus manifesting himself, and thus receiving 
supreme worship, was not a created angel, as the Arians would have it, 
nor an atmospheric appearance, the theory of modern Socinians, but 
that he was a Divine peeson. 

2. This Divine Peeson was not God the Fathee. — We do not 
claim that the Father never manifested himself to men, as distinct from 
the Son ; for this is contradicted by Scripture testimonies.* It is amply 
sufficient for the argument with which we are now concerned to 
prove that the angel of the Lord, whose appearances are so often 
recorded, is not the Father. This is clear from his appellation angel, 
with respect to which there can be but two interpretations. It is either 
a name descriptive of 7iature or of office. In the first view it is generally 
employed in the sacred Scriptures to designate one of an order of 
intelligences superior to man, but still finite and created. We have, 
however, already proved that the angel of the Lord is not a creature / 
and he cannot therefore be called an angel with reference to his 
nature. 

The term must then be considered as a term of office. He is called 
the angel of the Lord because he was the messenger of the Lord — 
because he was sent to do his will and to be his visible image and rep- 
resentative. His office, therefore, under this appellation, was ministe- 
rial ; but ministration is never attributed to the Father. He who was 
sent must be a distinct person from him by whom he Avas sent ; the mes- 
senger from him whose message he brought, and whose will he per- 
formed. The angel of Jehovah is therefore a different person from the 
Jehovah whose messenger he was ; and yet the angel himself is Jeho- 
vah, and, as we have proved, truly Divine. Thus does the Old Testa- 
ment most clearly reveal to us, in the case of Jehovah and the angel of 
Jehovah, two Divine persons, while it still maintains its great funda- 
mental principle, that there is but one God. 

3. The Divine Peeson so often called the Angel of the Loed 
was the peomised Messiah, and is consequently the Loed and Sav- 
I0T7E of the Cheistian Chuech. — We have seen that it was the angel of 

* See Exod. xxiii, 20; Matt, iii, 17 ; xvii, 5. 
13 



194 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

the Lord who gave the law to the Israelites, and that in his oicn name, 
though still an angel, a messenger in the transaction ; being at once 
servant and Lord, angel and Jehovah — circumstances which can only 
be explained on the hypothesis of his divinity, and for which neither 
Arianism nor Socinianism can give any solution. He was therefore the 
person who made the Mosaic covenant with the children of Israel. ' But 
the prophet Jeremiah says that the new covenant with Israel was to be 
made by the same person who had made the old. " Behold, the days 
come, saith the Lord, that I will maJte a new covenant with the house 
of Israel, and with the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant 
that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, 
to bring them out of the land of Egypt." Jer. xxxi, 31, 32. The angel 
of Jehovah, who led the Israelites out of Egypt and gave them their 
law, is here plainly introduced as the author of the new covenant. But 
this new covenant, as we learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews,* is the 
Christian dispensation ; and if Christ is its author, the Jehovah of the 
Old Testament and Christ of the New are the same Divine person. 

Equally striking is the celebrated prediction of Malachi, the last of the 
Jewish prophets : " Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall 
prepare the way before me ; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall sud- 
denly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye 
delight in ; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." Mai. iii. 1. 
Here the prophet describes the coming Messiah, not only as the mes- 
senger of the covenant, but also as the Lord and Owner of the Jewish 
temple; and, consequently, as a Divine prince or governor — he shall 
" come to his temple" The Lord of any temple is the divinity to whose 
worship it is consecrated. The temple at Jerusalem, of which the 
prophet here speaks, was consecrated to the true and living God ; and 
we have therefore the express testimony of Malachi that the Christ, the 
Deliverer, whose coming he announced, was no other than the Jehovah 
of the Old Testament. 

This prophecy is expressly applied to Christ by St. Mark. " As it is 
written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, 
which shall prepare thy way before thee." Mark i, 2. It follows from 
this that Jesus Christ is the Lord, the Lord of the temple, the mes- 
senger of the covenant mentioned in the prophecy. The appearing 
Jehovah of the Old Testament was the King of the Jews ; their temple 
was his, because he resided in it ; and he was the messenger of their 
covenant. But as all these characters are ascribed to Jesus Christ, the 
identity of the persons cannot be mistaken. One coincidence is sin- 
gularly striking. It has been proved that the Angel Jehovah had his 
residence in the Jewish tabernacle and temple, and that he took pos- 
session of both at their dedication, suddenly filling them with his glory. 
•On one occasion Jesus himself, though in his state of humiliation, came 

* Heb. viii, 8-13. 



Chap. 4, § 3.] DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 195 

in public procession to the temple at Jerusalem, and called it his own / 
thus at once declaring that he was the ancient and rightful Lord of the 
temple, and appropriating to himself this eminent prophecy. 

It would be easy to multiply quotations in which the name Jehovah 
and other Divine titles are applied to the Messiah ; and to show, more- 
over, that these very passages are applied, in the New Testament, to 
our Lord Jesus Christ. We will, however, notice only two others. 
The first is Isaiah xl, 3 : " The voice of him that crieth in the wilder- 
ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, (Jehovah,) make straight in the 
desert a highway for our God." This prediction is applied, in the 
Christian Scriptures, to John the Baptist, as the harbinger of Christ ; 
and it is, therefore, evident that our Lord is the person whom the 
prophet calls Jehovah and " our God." 

The other passage is 1 Cor. x, 9 : " Neither let us tempt Christ, as 
some of them (that is, the Jews in the wilderness) also tempted, and 
were destroyed of serpents." The pronoun avrbv, him, must be under- 
stood after "tempted," as referring to Christ just before mentioned. 
The Jews in the wilderness are here said to have tempted some per- 
son ; and to understand by that person any other than Christ, who is 
just before mentioned, is against all grammar, which never allows, 
without absolute necessity, any other accusative to be understood with 
the verb than that of some person or thing previously mentioned in 
the same sentence. The conjunction nai, also, establishes this interpre- 
tation beyond a doubt. Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them 
also tempted — tempted whom? The obvious answer is, Christ. If, 
therefore, the Israelites tempted Christ in the wilderness he is the 
Jehovah of the Old Testament. 

It has now been established that the Angel Jehovah and Jesus Christ 
our Lord are the same person ; and this is the first great argument by 
which his divinity is proved. He not only existed before his incarna- 
tion, but is seen at the head of the religious institutions of his Church 
up to the earliest ages. In every manifestation of himself he has given 
evidence that he " thought it not robbery to be equal with God." No 
name is given to the Angel Jehovah which is not given to Jehovah 
Jesus. No attribute is ascribed to.the one which is not ascribed to the 
other. The worship which was paid to the one by patriarchs and 
prophets was paid to the other by evangelists and apostles ; and the 
Scriptures declare them to be the same august person, the Redeeming 
Angel, the Redeeming Kinsman, and the Redeeming God. 



§ 3. Divine Titles ascribed to Christ. 

The next argument in support of the divinity of Christ is drawn from 
the titles which are ascribed to him in the sacred volume. If they are 
such as can designate a Divine Being, and a Divine Being only, then is 



196 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. [Book IT. 

Christ truly Divine. .To deny this conclusion would be to charge the 
word of truth with direct deception, and that, too, in a fundamental 
article of religion. This is Our argument, and we will proceed to the 
illustration. Our attention will be directed to only four of the Divine 
titles which are ascribed to our Lord. These are, Jehovah, Lord, 
God, and King of Israel. 

1. Jehovah.— That this name is applied to the Messiah in many 
passages of the Old Testament is admitted even by our opponents. 
But Dr. Priestley attempts to destroy the force of the argument 
deduced from this fact, by alleging that " several things in the Scrip- 
tures are called by the name of Jehovah; as, Jerusalem is called 
Jehovah our righteousness."* It is, however, "a miserable pretense to 
meet this argument by asserting that the name Jehovah is sometimes 
given to places. It is so, but only in composition with some other 
word ; as Jehovah- Jire, Jehovah-Nissi, Jehovah-Shall urn. Such names 
are used, not as descriptive of particular localities, but as memorials of 
events connected with them, which mark the interposition and char- 
acter of Jehovah himself. Thus: " Jehovah-Jire," the Lord will see 
or provide, referred to his interposition to save Isaac, and probably to 
the provision of the sacrifice of Christ. Nor is it true that Jerusalem 
is called "Jehovah our righteousness." The parallel passage clearly 
shows that this is the name, not of Jerusalem, but of " The Branch." f 
No instance can be given in which a created being is called Jehovah in 
the Scriptures, or was so called among the Jews. The peculiar sacred- 
hess attached to this name among them was a sufficient guard against 
such an application of it in their common language ; and as for the 
Scriptures, they explicitly represent it as peculiar to divinity itself. 
"I am Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to 
another" Isa. xlii, 8. " Thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the 
Most High above all the earth." Psa. Ixxxiii, 18. 

We see, then, that this is the peculiar and appropriate name of God, 
that name by which he is distinguished from all other beings, and 
which imports perfections so exclusively belonging to the living and 
true God that it cannot, in truth, be applied to any other being. This 
name, however, is solemnly and repeatedly given to the Messiah ; and, 
unless we can suppose Scripture to contradict itself, by making that a 
peculiar name of God which is not peculiar to him, and by establishing 
an inducement to that idolatry which it so sternly condemns, then this 
adorable name itself declares the absolute divinity of him who is 
invested with it. 

2. Lord. — Our Lord's disciples not only applied to him those pas- 
sages of the Old Testament in which the Messiah is called Jehovah, but 
they saluted and worshiped him by the title rcvpiog, Lord, which is of 
precisely the same original import. We admit that it is sometimes 

* History of "Early Opinions." f Jer. xxui. 5, 6; xxxiii, 16. 



CKap. 4, § 3.] DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 197 

used as the translation of other names of God, which import simply 
dominion, and that it is applied also to merely human masters and 
rulers ; but, in its highest sense, it is universally allowed to belong to 
God. If in this highest sense it is applied to Christ, then are we to 
regard it as denoting true and absolute divinity. 

The Jirst -proof of this is, that both in the Septuagint and by the writ- 
ers of the New Testament, Kvpio$ is the term by which the name 
Jehovah is translated. In all those passages, therefore, in which the 
Messiah is called by that peculiar title of divinity, we have the author- 
ity of the LXX for applying it in its full and highest signification to 
Jesus Christ, who is that Messiah. Accordingly, the New Testament 
writers apply this appellation to their Master when they quote these 
prophetic passages as fulfilled in him. They found it used in the Greek 
version of the Old Testament, in its highest possible import, as a ren- 
dering of Jehovah. Had they thought Jesus to be less than God, 
they could not have given him a title which would have misled their 
readers, unless they had intimated that they did not use it as a title of 
divinity, but in its lowest sense, as a term of merely human courtesy, 
or at most, of human dominion. But we have no such intimation ; and, 
if they wrote under Divine inspiration, it follows that they used 
it as being fully equivalent to the title Jehovah itself, as their quota- 
tions will show. 

St. Matthew quotes, and applies to Christ, Isaiah xl, 3 : " The voice 
of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, Kvpiov." 
The other Evangelists make the same application of it, representing 
John as the herald of Jesus, the Jehovah of the prophet, and their 
Kvpiog, Lord. On this point SV Paul also adds his testimony, Romans 
x, IB j " Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (kvqiov) shall be 
saved," which is quoted from Joel ii, 32 : " Whosoever shall call on the 
name of Jehovah shall be delivered." 

But, secondly, even when the title itvpioc, Lord, is not employed as 
the rendering of the name Jehovah, but is used as a common appella- 
tion of Christ, it is so connected with other terms, and with circumstan- 
ces which clearly imply divinity, as to afford additional proof that the 
disciples themselves considered it as a Divine title, and intended that it 
should be so understood by others. It is put absolutely, and by way of 
eminence, " The Lord." Christ is called by St. Luke " the Lord God ;" 
and Thomas adoringly addresses him, " My Lord and my God." When 
KvpLog is used to express dominion, that dominion is represented as 
absolute and universal, and therefore Divine. Hence Peter declares of 
Jesus Christ that "he is (icvpiog) Lord of all." Acts x, 36. 

3. God. — That this title is ascribed to Christ, even the adversaries of 
his divinity are obliged to confess. It is indeed said, that the term is 
sometimes used in an inferior sense ; but this proves nothing against the 
Deity of Christ, for it must still be allowed that it is generally used in 



198 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

Scripture to designate the Divine Being. The question is, therefore, 
limited to this : Is our Lord called God in the highest sense of that 
appellation ? 

Before we proceed to the examination of this question, it will be 
necessary to show that the term God, in its highest sense, involves the 
idea of absolute divinity. This has been denied by Sir Isaac Newton 
and Dr. Samuel Clarke, who considered it a relative term, importing 
nothing more than dominion. But if we trace the Scripture notion of 
what is truly and properly God, we shall find it made up of these 
several ideas : infinite wisdom, invincible power, immutability, all-suffi- 
ciency, and the like. These are the foundation of dominion, which is a 
secondary consideration ; but it must be nothing less than dominion 
supreme, which will accord with the Scripture notion of God. It is not 
merely that of a ruler, a governor, a lord, or a protector; but a Sovereign 
Ruler, an Omniscient and Omnipresent Governor, an Almighty Lord, 
an eternal, immutable, and all-sufficient Creator, Preserver, and Pro- 
tector. Whatever falls short of this is not properly God, in the Scripture 
import of that term, and cannot be so denominated, except by way of 
figure. 

If God were merely a relative term, having reference to subjects, it 
would necessarily follow, either that some of those subjects had an eter- 
nal existence, or that there was a time when there was no God. We 
have, however, the express testimony of Divine truth, that it is not 
dominion only, but absolute divinity, that is designated by the term. 
Thus, " Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou'hadst 
formed the earth or the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, 
thou art God." Psa. xc, 2. Here the tewn God is applied to that eter- 
nal Being who "formed the earth and the world." He is declared to 
be God "from everlasting," and consequently before any creature 
existed, and so before he had any subjects, or exercised any dominion. 

The import of the term God, in its highest sense, being thus shown 
to include all the excellences and glories of the Divine nature, if in this 
sense it is ascribed to Christ, it will prove, not as Arians would have 
it, his dominion only, but his divinity. Nor will it set aside this 
conclusion to say, that men are sometimes called gods„; for in the 
New Testament the term God is never applied in the singular to 
any man. 

Let us then adduce a few passages of Scripture in which this appella- 
tion is applied to Jesus Christ. Matt, i, 23 : " Behold, a virgin shall be 
with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name 
Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." 

John i, 1 : " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
with God, and the Word was God." 

John xx, 28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord 
and my God." 



Chap. 4, § 4.] DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 199 

Romans ix, 5 : " And of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, 
who is over all, God blessed forever." 

Titus ii, 13: " Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appear- 
ing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." 

Hebrews i, 8 : " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for 
ever and ever." 

1 John v, 20. " And we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus 
Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." 

4. King of Israel. — This title has an allusion to Christ's pre-exist- 
ence, and to his sovereignty over Israel under the law. It has been 
already established that the "Jehovah" "the Holy One of Israel" "the 
Lord of hosts" " the King of the Jews" of the Old Testament, is not 
the Father, but another Divine person, who, in the New Testament, is 
affirmed to be Jesus Christ. This being the view of the sacred writers 
of the evangelical dispensation, it is evident that they could not use the 
appellation "King of Israel" in a lower sense than that in which it 
stands in the Old Testament, and it is equally evident that the Jews 
understood it to imply divinity. 

Nathanael, upon a satisfactory proof of Christ's Messiahship, 
exclaimed, " Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel." 
John i, 49. While our Saviour hung upon the cross, the chief priests, 
the scribes, and the elders said, "If he be the King of Israel, let him 
now come down from the cross, and we will believe in him." Matt, 
xxvii, 42. 

§ 4. Divine Attributes are ascribed to Christ. 

Having considered the import of some of the titles applied to our 
Lord in the Scriptures, and having proved that they imply divinity, we 
may next consider the attributes which are ascribed to him. If, to 
names and lofty titles which imply divinity, we find added attributes 
never given to creatures, and from which all creatures are excluded, 
the Deity of Christ will be established beyond reasonable controversy. 
No argument can be more conclusive than this. Of the essence of 
Deity we know nothing, but that he is a Spirit. He is made known to 
us by his attributes, and it is from them we learn that there is an essen- 
tial distinction between him and his creatures. He has attributes which 
they have not, and those which they have in common with him he pos- 
sesses in an absolutely perfect degree. From this it follows, that his is 
a pecidiar nature, a nature sui generis, to which no creature can pos- 
sibly approximate. Should, then, these same attributes be found 
ascribed to Christ as explicitly and literally as to the Father, it Mill 
follow of necessity that, the attributes being the same, the essence 
must be the same, and that this essence is the exclusive nature of the 
Oeornc, or Godhead. 



200 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

Of the peculiar attributes of Deity which are ascribed to Jesus Christ 
we may notice, 

1. Eternity. — Isaiah calls him "The mighty God, the Everlasting 
Father, the Prince of Peace." Isa. ix, 6. The phrase "Everlasting 
Father " is variously rendered by the best orthodox critics ; but every 
rendering is consistent with the application of a positive eternity to the 
Messiah, of whom this is evidently a prediction. Christ declares of 
himself, " I am the First and the Last ;" and again, " I am Alpha 
and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, 
and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Rev. i, 8, 17. 
Now, it is by these very terms that the eternity of God is declared. 
" Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." 
Isa. xliii, 10. "I am the first, and I am the last ; and besides me there 
is no God." Isa. xliv, 6. These titles clearly indicate that the Being to 
whom they properly belong had no beginning, and will have no end ; 
and as they are explicitly and absolutely claimed by Christ, they are 
proofs of his eternity. 

2. Omnipresence. — Our Lord declares himself to be, at the same 
time, both in heaven and upon the earth ; which is surely a property of 
divinity alone. " No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came 
down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John iii, 13. 
Again, " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there 
am I in the midst of themP Matt, xviii, 20. 

How futile is the Socinian comment on this text, that this promise is to 
be " limited to the apostolic age !" Were that even granted, what would 
the concession avail ? In that age the disciples met in the name of their 
Lord many times in the week and in many parts of the world at the 
same time. He, therefore, who could be "in the midst of them," when- 
ever and wherever they assembled, must be omnipresent. The text is 
as literal a declaration of Christ's presence everywhere with his true 
worshipers, as that similar promise of Jehovah to the Israelites : " In all 
places where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless 
thee." Exod. xx, 24. At the very moment, too, of Christ's ascension, 
and when, as to his bodily presence, he was about to leave his disciples, 
he promised still to be with them, calling their attention to this promise 
by an emphatic exclamation : " Lo, I am with you alway, even to the 
end of the world." Matt, xxviii, 20. 

3. Omniscience. — This is an attribute which cannot be ascribed to a 
creature ; for though it may be difficult to say how far the knowledge 
of the highest order of intelligent creatures may be extended, yet there 
are two kinds of knowledge which God solemnly and exclusively claims 
as peculiar to himself. Tha first is a perfect knowledge of the thoughts 
and purposes of the human heart. " I the Lord search the heart, I try 
the reins." Jer. xvii, 10. "Thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts 
of all the children of men." 1 Kings viii, 39. This knowledge is 



Chap. 4, § 5.] DIVINE WORKS ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 201 

attributed to our Lord, and claimed by him ; not, however, as a super- 
natural gift, but as an original attribute. Hence St. John declares that 
" he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man ; for 
he knew what was in man." John ii, 24, 25. After his exaltation he 
claimed this prerogative, in the full style and majesty of the Old Testa- 
ment Jehovah. u And all the Churches shall know that I am he which 

SEARCHETH THE REINS AND HEARTS." Rev. U, 23. 

The second kind of knowledge, to which reference has been made, is 
the knowledge of futurity ; which is so peculiar to Deity that God dis- 
tinguishes himself from all the false divinities of the heathen by this cir- 
cumstance alone. " I am God, and there is none else ; I am God, and 
there is none like me ; declaring the end from the beginning, and from 
ancient times the things that are not yet done." Isa. xlvi, 9, 10. This 
kind of knowledge is also ascribed to Christ. All the predictions which 
he uttered are in proof that he possessed this attribute ; for they are 
nowhere referred to inspiration, the source to which all the prophets 
and apostles ascribed their prophetic gifts, but resulted from his own 
prescience. He " knew from the beginning who they were that believed 
not, and who should betray him." John vi, 64. 

4. Omnipotence. — This also is peculiar to the Godhead ; for, though 
power may be communicated to a creature, yet a finite capacity must 
limit the communication ; nor can it exist in an infinite degree any 
more than wisdom, except in an infinite nature. Christ claims "all 
power in heaven and in earth ;" and in Rev. i, 8, he is expressly styled 
" The Almighty." To the Jews he said, " What things soever he 
[the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." John v, 19. 

Thus we have seen that the Scriptures ascribe to our Lord Jesus 
Christ Eternity, Omnipresence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence — attri- 
butes which prove him to be " The true God ;" and we may now close 
the argument with his own remarkable declaration : " All things which 
the Father hath are mine." John xvi, 15. If the Son possess all things 
that belong to the Father, then he possesses all the attributes and per- 
fections of the Father, and must necessarily be of the same nature, sub- 
stance, and Godhead. 

§ 5. Divine Works are ascribed to Christ. 

This argument is confirmatory of the foregoing ; for if acts have been 
done by Christ which, in the nature of things, cannot be performed by 
any creature, however exalted, then must he be truly God. That such 
works are ascribed to him in the Holy Scriptures, we will now proceed 
to show. 

1. Creation.— The Socinians themselves acknowledge that the pro- 
duction of things out of nothing is possible only to Divine power ; and 
they, therefore, attempt to prove that the creation of which Christ is 



202 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. [Book IT. 

said to be the author, is a moral creation. To correct this error it is 
only necessary to exhibit two or three passages of Scripture which evi- 
dently ascribe to him the whole physical creation. St. John affirms, in 
the introduction of his Gospel, that " all things [without limitation or 
restriction] were made by" the Divine Word; and that "without him 
was not anything made that was made." If he had reference to a 
moral, and not a physical creation, he could not have expressed him- 
self in this manner without intending to mislead : a supposition which 
is equally contrary to his piety and to his inspiration. His meaning 
must, therefore, be, that there is no created object which had not Christ 
for its creator. 

But the apostle shows most clearly that the physical creation was the 
work of Christ, by asserting that "the world was made by him;" 
that world into which he came as " the light ;" that world in which he 
was when he was made flesh ; that world which " knew him not." It 
matters nothing to the argument whether " the world " be understood 
of men or of the material world. On either supposition "the world was 
made by him," and the creation was, therefore, physical. In neither 
case could the creation be a moral one, for the material world is 
incapable of a moral renewal; and the world which "knew not" 
Christ, if understood of men, was not renewed by a moral creation, 
but was unregenerate. 

Another passage, equally explicit in ascribing to Christ the physical 
creation, is found in Heb. i, 2 : " By whom also he made the worlds." 
" God," says the apostle, " hath in these last days spoken unto us by 
his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things ;" and he then pro- 
ceeds to give farther information in regard to the nature and dignity 
of the personage thus denominated the "Son" and "heir." In order 
to prove him greater than angels, who are the greatest of all created 
beings, the apostle declares that " by him also God made the worlds." 
That the term "worlds" is here to be understood of the material uni- 
verse, is evident from Heb. xi, 3 : " Through faith we understand that 
the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are 
seen were not made of things which do appear:" words which can only 
be understood of the physical creation. 

Another consideration which fixes the meaning of the clause, "by 
whom also he made the worlds," is, that in the same chapter the 
apostle reiterates the doctrine of the creation of the world by Jesus 
Christ. " But unto the Son he saith," not only, " Thy throne, O God, 
is for ever and ever ;" but also, " Thou, Lord, [Jehovah,] in the begin- 
ning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are the 
works of thine hands." This language is, beyond all controversy, 
addressed to Christ, and will forever attach to him, on the authority 
of inspiration, the title of " Jehovah" and array him in all the majesty 
of creative power and glory. 



Chap. 4, § 5.] DIVINE WORKS ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 203 

The only additional passage which it is necessary to adduce, in order 
to show that Christ is the creator of all things, and that the creation 
of which he is the author is not a moral but a physical creation ; not 
the framing of the Christian dispensation, but the forming of the whole 
universe of creatures out of nothing, is Colossians i, 16, 1*7: "For by 
him were all things cheated, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, 
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or prin- 
cipalities, or powers ; all things were created by him and for him ; 
and he is before all things." The terms here employed are an abund- 
ant refutation of the notion, that the creation mentioned is to be under- 
stood in a moral sense. The objects created are " all things in heaven 
and in earth ;" and lest immaterial beings should be thought to be 
excluded, the apostle adds, "visible and invisible." And, lest things 
invisible should be understood of inferior angels only, to the exclusion 
of those of the higher orders, the apostle becomes still more particular, 
and adds, "whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, 
or powers ;" terms by which the Jews expressed the different orders 
of angels, and which are thus employed in the Scriptures.* The pas- 
sage shows, moreover, that in the creation of all things Jesus Christ 
was both the efficient and the final cause, and not merely the instru- 
mental cause, working by and for another. " All things were created 
by him and for him." 

2. Preservation. — The sacred Scriptures declare that Jesus Christ 
is the preserver of all things as well as their creator, for " by him all 
things consist," (ovv earn tee, sunesteke,) are kept together, or preserved 
from falling into confusion or annihilation. This is surely a Divine 
work ; nor could it be said, consistent with reason and piety, that the 
universe is sustained by a created being. The same doctrine is taught 
in Heb. i, 3, where Christ is spoken of as "upholding all things by the 
word of his power." Td Trdvra (ta panto) signifies the universe, which 
the Son of God bears up, or sustains, by his almighty word. If, then, 
to preserve the created universe is the work of Jehovah, as the Scrip- 
tures declare,! and if this work is ascribed to our Lord, there can 
remain no doubt whatever that he also is Jehovah. 

3. The forgiveness of sins. — This is unquestionably one of the 
peculiar acts of God. In the manifest reason of the thing, no one can 
forgive but the party offended ; and, as sin is the transgression of the 
law of God, he alone is the offended party, and, therefore, he only can 
forgive. Mediately others may declare his pardoning acts, or the con- 
ditions on which he proposes to forgive; but authoritatively, there can 
be no actual forgiveness of sins but by God himself. 

But Christ forgives sins by his own authority, and therefore he is 
God. One single passage will prove this. " He said to the sick of the 
palsy, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven theeP Matt, ix, 2. 
* See Eph. i, 21; Col. ii, 10. f Neh. ix, 6; Psa. xxxvi, 6. 



204 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, [Book II. 

The scribes understood that he did this authoritatively^ and that he 
thereby assumed a Divine prerogative. They, therefore, said among 
themselves, " This man blasphemeth." What then was the conduct of 
our Lord on that occasion ? Did he admit that he only ministerially 
declared, in consequence of some revelation, that God had forgiven the 
sins of the paralytic ? On the contrary, he performed a miracle to 
prove that the very right which they disputed was vested in him. 
" That ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to for- 
give sins, then saith he to the sick of the palsy. Arise, take up thy bed, 
and go unto thine house." Matt, ix, 6. 

4. The raising of the dead. — It will be acknowledged by all, that 
to raise the dead is a Divine work. He only who first framed the 
human body, and connected with it a living spirit, can restore that body 
again to life, and bring back the soul from the invisible world to its 
original abode. It is u God who quickeneth the dead." Rom. iv, 1 7. 
But this power is claimed by Jesus Christ : " As the Father raiseth up 
the dead, and quickeneth them ; even so the Son quickeneth whom he 
will." John v, 21. Here Christ explicitly assumes equal power with 
the Father, and the same uncontrolled and sovereign exercise of it in 
the restoration of life. This power was exerted by our Lord, while he 
sojourned upon the earth, in raising to life the daughter of Jairus, the 
widow's son, Lazarus, and others ; but it will be more gloriously dis- 
played at the end of time, in restoring to life the millions of the human 
race who shall then be sleeping in the dust. " The hour is coming, in 
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come 
forth." John v, 28, 29. 

It may be objected that this work is not a decisive proof of divinity, 
because the dead were raised by some of the prophets and by the 
apostles of our Lord. To this it is only necessary to reply, that the 
prophets raised the dead in the name of the God of Israel, and the 
apostles in the name of Jesus Christ ; but he performed this miracle 
of power in his own name, and spoke of himself in terms which no 
prophet or apostle would have dared to employ : " I am the resurrec- 
tion and the life ; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet 
shall he live." John xi, 25. 

5. The final judgment is ascribed to Christ. — The Scriptures 
declare that "the Lord (Jehovah) is our Judge," and that "every 
one of us shall give account of himself to God y" but they declare also, 
that " we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ /" that 
" before him shall be gathered all nations ;" and that " he shall separate 
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." * 
To him who will pronounce the final sentence omniscience is necessary 
as well as omnipotence to execute it; for it will proceed not merely 
upon the external actions of men, but upon their motives and their 

* See Isa, xxxiii, 22; Rom. xiv, 12; 2 Cor. v, 10; Matt, xxv, 32. 



Chap. 4, § 6.] DIVINE WORSHIP PAID TO CHRIST. 205 

thoughts, which are known to him alone who searches the heart. 
Christ will indeed act in concurrence with the Father, who is hence 
said to judge the world by him ; but this high office necessarily sup- 
poses him to be truly God. 

§ 6. Divine Worship is paid to Christ. 

It will be our business in this section, first, to establish the fact that 
Jesus Christ is the object of worship ; and secondly, to consider the 
bearing which this fact has upon the doctrine of his Supreme Divinity. 

1. Christ is the Object of Worship.— Of this fact there are 
numerous proofs in the sacred Scriptures, a few of which we will 
notice. 

(1.) He was worshiped by his disciples prior to his ascension to 
heaven. — " When he was come down from the mountain, great multi- 
tudes followed him ; and behold, there came a leper and worshiped 
him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." Matt, viii, 
1, 2. When Jesus said to the man whom he had previously cured 
of blindness, " Dost thou believe on the Son of God ? he answered and 
said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him ? And Jesus said 
unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 
And he said, Lord, I believe ; and he worshiped him." John ix, 35-38. 
He worshiped Christ, be it observed, under the character, " Son of 
God," a title which the Jews regarded as implying actual divinity. 
The worship paid by this man must, therefore, in its intention, have 
been supreme, for it was offered to a person who was acknowledged to 
be Divine, " the Son of God." Again, when the disciples, fully yielding 
to the demonstration of our Lord's Messiahship, arising out of a series 
of splendid miracles, recognized him also under his personal character, 
" they worshiped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." 
Matt, xiv, 33. 

It is admitted that the word ttqogkvveg), (proskuneo,) to worship, is 
sometimes used to express that lowly reverence with which, in the East, 
it has been always customary to salute persons of rank, and especially 
rulers and sovereigns ; but it is frequently used to express also the wor- 
ship of the Supreme Jehovah. Whether, then, it denotes an act of civil 
respect or of Divine adoration, the circumstances of the case must 
determine. 

Our Lord could not have received the worship which was paid to 
him in the character of a civil governor. He had cautiously avoided 
the least intimation that he had any civil pretensions, or that his object 
was to make himself a king ; and, therefore, to have suffered himself to 
be saluted with the homage proper to civil governors would have been 
a marked inconsistency. Nor could he have received it in compliance 
with the custom of the Jewish Rabbins, who exacted great external 



206 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. [Book IT. 

reverence from their disciples, for he sharply reproved their haughti- 
ness, and their love of adulation and honor. The circumstances, then, 
which accompany these instances make it evident that the worship 
which the disciples paid to Christ was of the highest order — they wor- 
shiped him as God. 

(2.) Christ was worshiped by his disciples subsequent to his resur- 
rection and ascension. — When " he was parted from them, and carried 
up into heaven, they worshiped him." Luke xxiv, 51, 52. Here the 
act must necessarily have been one of Divine adoration, since it was 
performed after " he was parted from them," and, therefore, it cannot 
be resolved into the customary token of personal respect paid to supe- 
riors, which was always exhibited in their presence. 

When the apostles were assembled to fill the place of Judas, the lots 
being prepared " they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the 
hearts of all men,. show whether of these two thou hast chosen." Acts 
i, 24. That this prayer was addressed to Christ is clear, from its being 
his special prerogative to choose his own apostles. They are, therefore, 
styled " apostles," not of the Father, but " of Jesus Christ." Here, 
then, is a direct act of worship, because it is an act of prayer, and our 
Lord is addressed as one who knows " the hearts of all men." 

When Stephen, the protomartyr, was stoned, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, 
receive my spirit;" and again, "Lord, lay not this sin to their 
charge." Acts vii, 59, 60. In the former petition he acknowledges 
Christ to be the disposer of the eternal states of men ; in the latter, he 
acknowledges him to be the governor and judge of men, having power 
to remit, pass by, or visit their sins. These are so manifestly Divine 
acts that Stephen must have prayed to Christ, believing him to be 
truly God. 

St. Paul, in that affliction which he metaphorically describes by " a 
thorn in the flesh," "besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart 
from " him ; and the answer shows that " the Lord " to whom he addressed 
his prayer was Christ ; for he adds, " And he said unto me, My grace is 
sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most 
gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power 
of Christ may rest upon me." 2 Cor. xii, 7-9. The invoking of Christ 
was not only practiced by the apostle himself, as several passages 
show ;* but is adduced by him as a distinctive characteristic of Chris- 
tians, so that among all the primitive Churches this practice must have 
been universal. " Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, with 

all that IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF JeSUS CHRIST OUr 

Lord." 1 Cor. i, 2. 

To these instances are to be added all the doxologies to Christ, in 
common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and all the benedictions 
made in his name in common with theirs, for all these are forms of wor- 
* See 2 Thes. ii, 16, 17 ; 2 Tim. iv, 22. 



Chap. 4, § 6.] DIVINE WOKSHIP PAID TO CHRIST. 207 

ship. The first consist of ascriptions of equal and Divine honors, with 
grateful recognitions of the Being addressed as the author of benefits 
received. The following may be given as a few out of many instances : 
" But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ. To him be glory, both now and for ever. Amen." 2 Pet. 
iii, 18. u Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his 
own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his 
Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." 
Rev. i, 5, 6. When we consider the serious and reverential manner in 
which these doxologies are introduced, and the superlative praise which 
they convey, so far surpassing what humanity can deserve, we must 
suppose that the Being to whom they refer is really Divine. The 
ascription of eternal glory and everlasting dominion, if addressed to any 
creature, however exalted, would be idolatrous and profane. 

Benedictions are blessings solemnly pronounced upon persons in the 
name of God, and were derived from the practice of the Jewish priests, 
and the still older patriarchs, who blessed others in the name of Jehovah, 
as his representatives. These are so regular in their form as to make it 
clearly appear that the apostles constantly blessed the people ministeri- 
ally in the name of Christ as one of the blessed Trinity. " Grace to 
you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." 
Rom. i, 7. " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." 
2 Cor. xiii, 14. 

In answer to the Socinian perversion, that these are mere " wishes," 
or " expressions of good-will," it may be observed that this objection 
overlooks, or notices very slightly, the main point on which the whole 
question turns, the nature of the blessings sought, and consequently, 
the qualities which they imply in the Person who is desired to bestow 
them. The blessings sought are grace, mercy, and peace / which are 
the highest gifts that Omnipotent Benevolence can bestow, or a depend- 
ent nature receive. To desire such blessings, either in the mode of 
direct address, or in that of precatory wish, from any being who is not 
possessed of omnipotent goodness, would be absurd, and sinful in the 
highest degree. 

(3.) The worship of Christ is practiced among heavenly beings. — 
" When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And 
let all the angels of god worship him." Heb. i, 6. The Apocalypse, 
in its scenic representations, exhibits Christ as, equally with the Father, 
the object of the worship of angels and glorified saints ; placing every 
creature in the universe, except the inhabitants of hell, in prostrate 
adoration at his feet. "And every creature which is in heaven and on the 
earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are 
in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be 
unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever 



208 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

and ever." Rev. v, 13. Having now established the fact, that Jesus 
Christ is the object of worship, we will proceed to consider, 

2. The bearing which this fact has upon the doctrine of his 
Supreme Divinity. — To perceive this clearly, we should first inquire 
into the religious principles and practice of the early disciples of our 
Lord. As to their religious principles, they were Jews ; and Jews, too, 
of an age in which their nation had shaken off its idolatrous propensities, 
and which was distinguished by its zeal against all worship or religious 
trust of which any creature was the object. The great principle of the 
law was, " Thou shalt have no other gods before (or beside) me."* It 
was, therefore, commanded by Moses, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy 
God, and him shalt thou serve ;"f which words are quoted by our Lord 
in his temptation, when solicited to worship Satan, so as to prove that 
to fear God and to serve him are expressions which signify worship, and 
that all other beings but God are excluded from it. " Thou shalt wor- 
ship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Luke iv, 8. 
Accordingly, we find the apostles teaching and practicing this as a first 
principle of their religion. 

St. Paul charges the heathen with not glorifying God when they knew 
him, and with worshiping and serving "the creature more than (or 
besides) the Creator." Rom. i, 25. Again, when he mentions it as one 
of the crimes of the Galatians, previous to their conversion to Christian- 
ity, that they " did service unto them which by nature are no gods," he 
plainly intimates that no one has a title to religious service but he who 
is by nature God ; and if so, he himself could not have worshiped Christ 
had he not believed him to be truly Divine. 

The practice of the apostles was in strict accordance with this princi- 
ple. Thus, when worship was offered to Peter by Cornelius, who cer- 
tainly did not take him to be God, he forbade it. So also Paul and 
Barnabas prevented the people at Lystra from offering to them religious 
honors with expressions of horror. An eminent instance is recorded, 
also, of the exclusion of all creatures, however exalted, from the honor 
of religious worship, in Rev. xix, 10, where the angel refused to receive 
so much as even the outward act of adoration. His language is, " See 
thou do it not: worship God" clearly intimating thereby .that all acts 
of religious worship are to be appropriated to God alone. 

From the known and avowed religious sentiments, then, of the apos- 
tles, both as Jews and as Christians, as well as from their practice, it 
follows that they could not have paid religious worship to Christ, a fact 
which has already been established, unless they had considered him as 
a Divine person, and themselves as bound on that account, according 
to his own words, to honor the Son, even as they honored the Father. 
It is the testimony of St. Paul that he, " being in the form of God, 
thought it not robbery to be equal with God," — a passage which inci- 
* Exod. xx, 4. f Deut. x, 20. 



Chap. 4, § 6.] DIVINE WORSHIP PAID TO CHRIST. 209 

dentally teaches the Godhead of Christ, and which cannot be reconciled 
to any hypothesis that excludes his essential Deity. 

Arians devised the doctrine of supreme and inferior worship, and a 
similar distinction was maintained by Dr. Samuel Clarke, to reconcile 
the worship of Christ with his semi-Arianism. The same sophistical 
distinction is resorted to by Roman Catholics to vindicate the worship 
of angels, the Virgin Mary, and departed saints. But it is a suffi- 
cient refutation of this theory, 

(1.) That it has no countenance in the Sacred Scriptures. — We often 
read of prayer ; but there is not a word respecting absolute and relative, 
supreme and inferior prayer. Wa are commanded to pray fervently 
and incessantly, but never to pray sovereignly or absolutely. Nor have 
we any rules left us about raising or lowering our intentions, in propor- 
tion to the dignity of the object. 

(2.) That the Scriptures are directly opposed to it. — Sacrifice was a 
mode of worship required under the law, and was doubtless not more 
solemn in its character than the exercise of prayer ; but it is said, "He 
that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly 
destroyed." Exod. xxii, 20. Now suppose any person, considering that 
this law referred only to absolute and sovereign sacrifice to God, had 
sacrificed to other gods, and had been convicted of it before the judges. 
His apology for the act must have run thus : " I did, indeed, sacrifice 
to other gods, but it was not absolute or supreme sacrifice, which is all 
that the law forbids. I considered the gods to whom I sacrificed as 
inferior beings, and I offered them, therefore, only a relative and infe- 
rior service; reserving all sovereign sacrifice to the Supreme God of 
Israel." But is it likely that such an apology would have saved him 
from the penalty of the law ? If it would not, which we think is evi- 
dent, then the law appropriated all sacrifice to God. 

Such being the case with respect to sacrificial worship, we may ask, 
What is there so peculiar in invocation and adoration that they should 
not be governed by the same law? Why should not absolute and 
relative prayer and prostration appear as absurd as absolute and relative 
sacrifice ? They are, like the other, acts of religious worship, and are 
appropriated to God in the same manner, by the same laws, and upon 
the same grounds and reasons. We are not at liberty to fix what signi- 
fication we please to the acts of religious worship, making them high or 
low at discretion ; for God himself has determined their signification to 
be supreme by claiming to be their only lawful object. It follows, 
therefore, that we can never use them in any other sense without being 
guilty of profaneness or idolatry. 

14 



210 THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. [Book II. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 

That the title "Son op God" is applied to Jesus Christ is not denied. 
His disciples, occasionally before and frequently after his resurrection, 
gave him this appellation, and he « assumed it himself. The question, 
therefore, is, In what sense is this title to be understood? In answering 
this question we will, first, notice several false theories that have been 
adopted respecting the Sonship of Christ ; secondly, adduce the testi- 
mony of Scripture in support of the doctrine that the title "Son of God" 
is a designation of his Divine nature; and, thirdly, make some remarks 
on the importance of maintaining the orthodox view upon this subject. 
I. We are to notice several false theories that have been 

ADOPTED RESPECTING THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 

L Various attempts have been made to restrict the title " Son of 
God" to the mere humanity of our Saviour, and to rest its application 
upon his miraculous conception. It is true that this opinion is held by 
some who hesitate not to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is a Divine 
person ; but, by denying his Deity as " the Son of God," they both 
depart from the faith of the early Christian Church, and give up to 
Socinians the whole argument for the divinity of Christ, which is 
founded upon that eminent appellation. 

Those who think that it was assumed by Christ, and given to him 
by his disciples because of his miraculous conception, are obviously in 
error. Our Lord, when he adopted the appellation, never urged his 
miraculous birth as a proof of his Sonship ; but when he called God 
his Father, he grounded the proof of his claim upon the miracles 
which he performed. The Jews clearly conceived that, in making this 
profession of Sonship with reference to God, he assumed a Divine 
character, and made himself " equal loith God" They, therefore, took 
up stones to stone him. 

Nor did the disciples themselves give him this title with reference 
to his conception by the Holy Ghost. Certain it is, that Nathan ael 
did not know the circumstances of his birth, for he was announced to 
him by Philip as Jesus of Nazareth, "the Son of Joseph y" and he, 
therefore, asked, " Can any good thing come out of JVazareth ?" He 
did not know but that Jesus was the son of Joseph ; he knew nothing 
of his being bom in Bethlehem ; and yet he confessed him to be " the 
Son of God " and " the King of Israel." 

It may also be observed that in the celebrated confession of Peter, 



Chap. 5.] THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 211 

" Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," there is no refer- 
ence at all to our Lord's miraculous conception. Nor did this form 
any part of the ground on which he confessed " the Son of Man " to 
be the " Son of God ;" for our Lord replied, " Flesh and blood hath 
not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." 
Peter had, therefore, been taught the doctrine of the Sonship of 
Christ by a special revelation from God the Father, an unnecessary 
thing, certainly, if the miraculous conception had been the only ground 
of that Sonship ; for the evidence of that fact might have been col- 
lected from Christ and his virgin mother. 

2. This ground, therefore, not being, tenable, it has been urged that 
" Son of God " was simply an appellation of Messiah, and is, conse- 
quently, an official, and not a personal designation. Against this, how- 
ever, the evangelic history affords decisive proof. 

That the Messiah was the Jehovah of the Old Testament has been 
shown in a former chapter ; and this is to be regarded as the faith of 
the ancient Jewish Church. But it is certain that at the period of our 
Lord's advent the great body of the Jews had given up the Divine 
character of the Messiah, and held the opinion that he was to be a 
temporal monarch. The true doctrine was retained only among the 
faithful few, as Simeon, who expressly ascribed divinity to the Messiah, 
and Nathanael, who connected "Son of God" and "King of Israel " 
together, one the designation of the Divine nature, the other of the office 
of the Messiah. 

Three things are therefore clear, from the writings of the Evangelists : 
1. That the Jews recognized the existence of such a being as the " Son 
of God." 2. That they regarded it blasphemy for any created being to 
claim this designation. 3. That for a person to profess to be the Mes- 
siah simply was not considered blasphemy, and did not exasperate the 
Jews. Our Lord certainly professed to be the Messiah ; many of the Jews 
also, at different times, believed on him as such/ and yet these same 
Jews were not only offended, but took up stones to stone him as a 
blasphemer when he declared himself to be the " Son of God." We 
cannot, therefore, account for the use of this title among the Jews of 
our Lord's time, whether by his disciples or his enemies, by considering 
it as synonymous with Messiah. The Jews regarded the former as 
necessarily involving a claim to divinity, but not the latter; and the dis- 
ciples did not conceive that they fully confessed their Master by calling 
him the Messiah without adding to it his higher designation. "Thou 
art Christ," said Peter ; but he immediately added, " The Son of the 
Living God." So Nathanael, under the influence of a recent proof of 
his omniscience, and, consequently, of his divinity, salutes him, first, as 
the " Son of God," and then as Messiah, " the King of Israel." 

We conclude, therefore, that the title "Son of God," as it is applied to 
Jesus Christ, is a personal designation, and not one of office ; that it 



212 THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

was essential in him to be a Son, and only accidental that he was the 
Messiah ; that he was the first by nature, the second by appointment; 
and that, in constant association with the name Son, as given to him 
alone, and in a sense which shuts out all creatures, however exalted, 
are found ideas and circumstances of full and absolute divinity. 

3. Another opinion is, that the title " Son of God" is applied to 
Christ because God raised him from the dead. Those who adopt this 
theory rest it mainly on a passage in the second Psalm : a TSie Lord 
hath said unto me, Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." 
They suppose that the day spoken of in the text is the day of Christ's 
resurrection, and interpret his being " begotten " of the Father as 
denoting the act of raising him from the dead, thus making his resur- 
rection the ground of his Sonship. 

From apostolic authority we know that the "Son" here represented 
as speaking is Christ, for to him this passage is explicitly applied at 
least twice in the New Testament.* But he is so frequently called the 
Son, when there is no reference to his resurrection, that this cannot be 
the ground of that relation. This point, however, may be settled by 
the following considerations : 

(1 .) It is clearly indicated in the Scriptures that Christ raised himself 
from the dead by his own power. He explicitly declared, when speak- 
ing of his life, "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take 
it again." John x, 18. Accordingly he said to the Jews, "Destroy 
this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" John ii, 19. 
Hence it would follow, if the preceding interpretation were true, 
that our Lord begat himself, and is therefore his own son, which is 
absurd. 

(2.) He was declared from heaven to be the beloved Son of the 
Father at his very entrance upon his public ministry, and, consequently, 
before his resurrection. " And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is 
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt, iii, 17. 

(3.) St. Paul tells us (Rom. i, 4) that the resurrection of Christ 
was the declaration of his Sonship, and not the ground of it — 
"Declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection 
from the dead." This was, therefore, the declaration of -an antecedent 
Sonship. 

(4.) The titles and honors ascribed in this Psalm to the extraordinary 
person who is the chief subject of it far transcend what the Scriptures 
ascribe to any mere creature. He is the Lord's Anointed, the King of 
Zion, and the rightful Sovereign of the nations. Accordingly, kings 
and judges of the earth are exhorted to " kiss the Son ;" and all are pro- 
nounced blessed who "put their trust in him" This is surely an une- 
quivocal declaration of divinity ; for it is written, " Cursed be the man 
that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arm." Jer. xvii, 5. 
* See Acts xiii, 33 ; Heb. I 5. 



Chap. 5.] THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 213 

(5.) It is also to be noted that St. Paul employs the very passage 
under consideration to prove that Christ is superior to angels : " For 
unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, 
this day have I begotten thee ?" Heb. i, 5. The force of this argument 
lies in the expression " begotten," importing that the person addressed 
is the Son of God, not by creation, but by generation. Christ's pre-em- 
inence over the angels is here stated to consist in this, that whereas they 
were created, he was begotten; and the apostle's reasoning would be 
fallacious if the expression did not intimate a proper and peculiar filia- 
tion. The argument shows, therefore, that the title Sox, which is given 
to the Messiah in this Psalm, implies real divinity. 

Having noticed and refuted some of the false theories respecting the 
Sonship of Christ, we will now proceed, 

II. To ADDUCE THE TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE EN" SUPPORT OF THE DOC- 
TRINE THAT THE TITLE " SON OF God" IS A DESIGNATION OF HIS DlVINE 

Nature. 

We will direct our attention, 

1. To a few passages in the Old Testament in which a Divine Son 
is spoken of. — We have seen that the term Son, in the second Psalm, 
is applied to Jesus Christ, and that it denotes real divinity. To this 
we may add Prov. viii, 22, in which Solomon introduces, not the per- 
sonified, but the personal wisdom of God, under the same relation of a 
Son, and in that relation ascribes to him Divine attributes. " The Lord 
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I 
was set up (appointed) from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever 
the world was. When there were no depths I was brought forth," or 
born. Here, from a consideration of the excellence of wisdom in the 
abstract, there is an easy transition to that of its infinite Source ; and 
hence the inspired writer proceeds to delineate a Divine Being, who is 
portrayed in colors of such splendor and majesty as can be attributed 
to no other than the eternal Son of God. 

To say of wisdom, as an attribute, that God possessed it in the begin- 
ning of his way, is certainly too trifling an observation to be attributed 
to the wise monarch of Israel. In what way can it be predicated of a 
quality that it was set up or appointed from everlasting ? But every 
attribute which is here ascribed to wisdom is strictly applicable to the 
divine Logos, who "was in the beginning with God," and in whom 
"dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." 

The eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ is most unequivocally expressed 
in the prophecy of Micah : " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though 
thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he 
come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth 
have been from of old, from everlasting ;" or, as it is in the margin, " from 
the days of eternity." Micah v, 2. There is here ascribed to the person 
spoken of a twofold birth or going forth. By a natural birth he Avas to 



214 THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

come forth from Bethlehem of Judah ; but by another and higher birth 
he had been "from the days of eternity."* 

This passage is so signal a description of Christ, the eternal Son of 
God, who assumed our nature and was born in Bethlehem, that it evi- 
dently belongs to him, and to no other being; and it is so decidedly 
indicative of that peculiar notion of his divinity, which is marked by the 
term and the relation of Son, that Socinians have resorted to the utmost 
violence of criticism to escape its powerful evidence. Dr. Priestley says 
" that it may be understood concerning the promises of God, in which 
the coming of Christ was signified to mankind from the beginning of 
the world." 

To this we reply that the word which is rendered " goings forth " 
never signifies the work of God in predicting future events, but is often 
used to express natural birth and origin. It is unquestionably so used 
in the preceding clause, and cannot be taken in a dhTerent sense in that 
which immediately follows, and especially when a clear antithesis is 
marked and intended. He was born in time, but was not, on that 
account, merely human ; for though born in Bethlehem, his " goings 
forth," his production, his heavenly birth or generation, was from ever- 
lasting. 

Others refer the phrase, "his goings forth," to the purpose of God- 
that Christ should come into the world ; but this is too absurd to need 
refutation. It would be mere trifling solemnly to affirm of the Messiah 
what is just as true of every other man born into the world. This pas- 
sage is, therefore, an irrefutable proof of the faith of the ancient Jewish 
Church, both in the divinity and the Divine Sonship of the Messiah. 

The same relation of Son, in the full view of Supreme Divinity, and 
where no reference appears to be had to the office and work of the Mes- 
siah, is found in Prov. xxx, 4 : " Who hath ascended up into heaven, or 
descended ? who hath gathered the wind in his fists ? who hath bound 
the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? 
what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell ?" Here 
the Deity is contemplated, not in his redeeming acts, but in his works 
of creation and providence, managing at will and ruling the operations 
of nature ; and yet, even in these peculiar offices of divinity alone, he is 
spoken of as having a Son, whose "name," that is, according to the He- 
brew idiom, whose nature is as deep, mysterious, and unutterable as his 
own. " What is His name, and what is his Son's name ; canst thou tell ?" 

It was thus that the Scriptures of the Old Testament furnished the 
Jews with the idea of a personal Son in the Divine nature. They were 

* The word IKS' 1 , yatza, to come forth, is frequently used in reference to birth, or gen- 
eration, as in Gen. xvii, 6; 2 Kings xx, 18 ; and so the Jews understood it, when they 
replied to the inquiry of Herod in regard to the place where Christ should be born, by 
quoting this very passage. According to a common Hebraism in order to denote emi- 
nency, the word for birth, which is rendered "goings forth," is used in its plural form. 



Chap. 5.] THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 215 

not only acquainted with the phrase " Son of God," but in a good 
degree they understood its true import. Nor is it any objection to this, 
that among their ancient writers it was sometimes applied to the Mes- 
siah. It is granted that the Messiah is the Son of God ; but that the 
phrase Son of God ceases, on that account, to be a personal designa- 
tion, or that it imports the same as Messiah, is what we deny. David 
was the son of Jesse and the king of Israel. He, therefore, who was 
king of Israel was the son of Jesse ; but the latter is the 2^rso?ial, the 
former only the official description. The latter marks his origin and 
family ; for before he was king of Israel he was the son of Jesse. In 
like manner "Son of God" marks the natural relation of the Messiah to 
God, and the term Messiah his official relation to men. This relation 
to God subsists not in the human, but in the higher nature of the Mes- 
siah ; and this higher nature being proved to be Divine, it follows that 
the phrase " Son of God," as applied to Jesus Christ, is a title of abso- 
lute divinity, importing his participation in the very nature and essence 
of God. 

2. The same ideas of a Divixe Soxship are suggested, by almost 
every passage in which the phrase occurs in the New Testament. — When 
Jesus was baptized "the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw 
the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him ; and lo, a 
voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased." Matt, hi, 16, 17. The circumstances of this testimony are of 
the most solemn and impressive kind, and there can be no rational doubt 
but that they were designed authoritatively to invest our Lord with the 
title "Son of God" in its fullest sense — rendered stronger and more 
emphatic by the epithet " beloved" and by the declaration that in him 
the Father was " well pleased." It is evident that the title was applied 
to him on grounds independent of the circumstances of his birth, or of 
his official relation to men; and that he was in a higher nature than his 
human, and for a higher reason than an official one " the Son of God." 
Accordingly, as soon as John the Baptist had heard the testimony of 
the Father respecting our Lord, and had seen the descent of the Holy 
Spirit upon him, he declared him to be " the Sox of God." 

To the transaction at his baptism our Lord himself adverts in John 
v, 37 : " And the Father himself, which hath sent me; hath borne wit- 
ness of me." He had just adverted to the evidence of his divinity aris- 
ing from his miraculous works, and, in addition to this, he introduces 
that distinct personal testimony of the Father which was given at his 
baptism. Now, the witness of the Father on that occasion is that 
Christ is his " beloved Sox;" and it is remarkable that our Lord intro- 
duces this testimony of the Father at a time when his claim to be the 
Son of God was a matter of dispute with the Jews. They denied that 
God was his Father in the high sense in which he was obviously to be 
understood ; and " they sought to kill him, because he had said that 



216 THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

Gocl was his Father, making himself equal with God" What then, in 
this case, was the conduct of our Lord ? He reaffirmed his Sonship 
even in this very objectionable sense, claiming the power to perform the 
works of God, to raise the dead, and to exercise all judgment, and the 
right to be honored of all men, " even as they honor the Father."* 

The epithet " only begotten," which several times occurs in the New 
Testament, affords further proof of the Sonship of Christ in his Divine 
nature. One of these instances only need be selected : " The Word 
was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory 
as of the only begotten of the Father, fall of grace and truth." John 
i, 14. If the term "only begotten" referred to Christ's miraculous con- 
ception, then the glory " as of the only-begotten " must be a glory of 
the human nature of Christ only, for that alone was capable of being thus 
conceived. This, however, is clearly contrary to the scope of the pass- 
age, which does not speak of the glory of that nature which the Word 
assumed, but of the glory of the Word himself, who is here said to be 
the " oniy-begotten of the Father." It is, therefore, the glory of his 
Divine nature that is here intended. 

It is also clear that the miraculous conception of Christ could not con- 
stitute him a Son, except as it consisted in the immediate formation of 
his manhood by the power of God ; but, in this respect, he was not the 
" only-begotten" not the only Son, because Adam was thus also imme- 
diately produced, and for this very reason is called by St. Luke " the 
son of God." The note in the Socinian version tells us, " that this 
expression," only-begotten, " does not refer to any particular mode of 
derivation or existence ; but is used to express merely a higher degree 
of affection, and is applied to Isaac, though Abraham had other sons." 
Isaac, however, was so called because he was the only child which Abra- 
ham had by his wife Sarah ; and this instance is therefore against the 
Socinian theory. It would be easy to show that fxovoyevrjg, only-begot- 
ten, does not anywhere import the affection of a parent, but the peculiar 
relation of an only son, and as this peculiarity does not apply to the 
production of the mere humanity of our Lord, the first man being in this 
sense, and for this very reason, a " son of God," the epithet must be 
applied to his Divine nature, in which alone he is at once naturally and 
exclusively " the Son of the living God." 

Those passages which declare that "all things were made by" the 
SoN,f and that " God sent his Son into the world," J may be considered as 
declarations of a Divine Sonship. The former imply that the Creator 
was a Son at the very period of creation, and the latter, that he was the 
Son of God before he was sent into the world ; and thus both will prove 
that this relation is independent of his incarnation, or of his official 
appointment as Messiah. 

* See John v, 18-29. \ See Jolm h 3 5 Col. i, 16 ; Heb. i, 2. 

J See John iii, 17 ; Gal. iv, 4 : 1 John iv, 9, 10, 14. 



Chap. 5.] THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 217 

The only plausible objection to this is, that a person may be said to 
perform actions under a title which he subsequently receives. Thus we 
ascribe the " Principia " to Sir Isaac Newton, though that work was 
written before he received the honor of knighthood. Accordingly, we 
are told by those who allow the divinity of Christ, while they deny his 
Divine Sonship, that the sacred writers ascribed creation and other 
Divine acts to the Son merely by an interchange of appellations between 
his human and his Divine nature ; meaning thereby, that they were done 
by that same Divine Person who, in consequence of his incarnation and 
miraculous conception, became the Son of God. Thus it is said that 
" the Lord of glory " was crucified, and that God purchased the Church 
" with his own blood.'''' So, also, in familiar style, we speak of the 
divinity of Jesus, and of the Godhead of the Son of Mary. 

To this our reply is, that though an interchange of appellations is 
acknowledged, yet even this supposes that some of them are designa- 
tions of our Lord's Divine nature, while others describe the nature 
which he assumed. But the simple circumstance of such an interchange 
will no more prove the title Son of God to be a human designation 
than it will prove Son of Mary to be a Divine one. If " Son of God" 
does not relate to the divinity of our Lord, then, as God, he has no 
distinctive name in all the Scriptures. The title " God " does not dis- 
tinguish him from the other persons of the Trinity, and the term " word " 
stands in precisely the same predicament as " Son ;" for the same kind 
of criticism may reduce it to merely an official appellative. 

But the notion that the title " Son of God " is an appellation of the 
human nature of our Lord, and that it is applied to him in his Divine 
character merely by a customary interchange of designations, is an 
assumption which cannot be proved ; while all those passages which 
connect the title " Son" immediately and by way of eminence, with his 
divinity, remain wholly unaccounted for on this theory, and are there- 
fore contrary to it. It is evident, that in direct relation to his Divine 
nature, and without reference to any other circumstance, he claimed 
God as his Father. When he said to the Jews, " My Father worketh 
hitherto and I work," they understood him to assert that in this high 
sense "God was his Father, \rcareoa idiov, his own proper Father,] 
making himself equal with God." John v, 17, 18. And when our 
Lord said, " I and my Father are one," the " Jews took up stones to 
stone him," saying, "For a good work we stone thee not, but for 
blasphemy; and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God." 
John x, 31-33. 

His unequivocal answer to the direct question of the Jewish council, 
when he was on his trial before them, is also in point here. " Then said 
they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say 
that I am." Luke xxii, 70. The obvious meaning of our Lord's reply 
is, I am that, or what ye say ; thus declaring that, in the very sense in 



218 THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

which they put the question, he was the Son of God. But in confess- 
ing himself to be in that sense the Son, he did more than claim to be 
the Messiah, for the counsel judged him to be guilty of blasphemy, and 
therefore worthy of death ; a charge which could not lie against any 
one, by the Jewish law, for professing to be the Messiah. His blas- 
phemy was alleged to consist in his making himself " the Son of God," 
which was, in their view, an assumption of positive divinity ; and the 
conduct of our Lord shows that they did not mistake his intention, for 
he suffered them to proceed against him without lowering his claims or 
correcting their opinion. 

The whole argument of the apostle in the first chapter of Hebrews is 
designed to prove that our Lord is superior to angels, and he adduces, 
as conclusive evidence on this point, that to none of the angels did God 
ever say, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." He 
argues, therefore, on this very ground of Sonship that Christ is superior 
to angels ; that is, superior in nature and in natural relation to God ; for 
in no other way is the argument conclusive. He has his title Son by 
way of inheritance ; that is, by natural and hereditary right. " He hath 
by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they ;" that is, by 
his being of the Father, and therefore by virtue of his Divine filiation. 
Angels may be, in an inferior sense, the sons of God by creation ; but 
they cannot inherit that title for this plain reason, that they are created, 
not begotten; while our Lord inherits "the more excellent name" 
because he is begotten, not created. " For, unto which of the a*ngels 
said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" 
The same ideas of absolute divinity connect themselves with this title 
throughout the chapter. " The Son," by whom " God hath in these 
last days spoken unto us," is "the brightness of his glory and the 
express image of his person ;" but it is only to the Divine nature of our 
Lord that these expressions can refer. 

As in none of these passages the title " Son of God" can possibly be 
considered as a designation of his human nature or office, so we find 
proof of equal force that it is used even by way of opposition and con- 
tradistinction to the inferior nature. Thus St. Paul says of the " Son 
Jesus Christ " that he " was made of the seed of David '-according to 
the flesh ; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to 
the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." Rom. i, 3, 4. 
A very few remarks will be sufficient to point out the force of this 
passage. The apostle is speaking not of what Christ is officially, but of 
what he is personally and essentially, for the truth of all his official 
claims depends upon the truth of his personal ones. If he is a Divine 
person he is everything else that he assumes to be. He is, therefore, 
considered by the apostle in his twofold nature. As a man he was " of 
the seed of David according to the flesh ;" but in a superior nature he 
was "declared to be the Son of God." That an opposition is expressed 



Chap. 5.] THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 219 

between what Christ is " according to the flesh," and what he is accord- 
ing to a higher nature, must be allowed, or else there is no force in the 
apostle's observation ; and it must be equally clear that the nature put 
in opposition to Christ's fleshly nature can be no other than his Divine 
nature, which the apostle calls " the Son of God." 

We also learn, from Romans viii, 3, that God sent "his own Son in 
the likeness of sinful flesh." The person who is here entitled the Son 
was sent " in the likeness of sinful flesh ;" but in what other way could 
he have been sent if he were Son only as a man ? It is, therefore, most 
clearly intimated that he was a Son before he was sent, and that flesh 
was the nature which the Son assumed, but not the nature in which he 
was "the Son of God." 

With the same idea of the absolute divinity of the Son, as distin- 
guished from his humanity, the apostle applies that lofty passage from 
the forty-fifth psalm. " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, 
is for ever and ever." Heb. i, 8. It is allowed by all who hold the Deity 
of Christ that he is here addressed as a being composed of two natures, 
Divine and human. As man, he is anointed " with the oil of gladness," 
and elevated above his " fellows ;" while the stability of his throne, 
and the unsullied justice of his government, declare his Godhead. He 
is, however, called the Son ; but this term could not characterize the 
being here introduced, unless it agreed with his higher and Divine 
nature. The Son is addressed — that Son is addressed as God, and as 
God whose throne is for ever and ever. 

Thus we think it fully established, that the title " Son of God " is 
not given to Christ on account of his miraculous conception ; that it is 
not an appellative of his human nature, occasionally applied to him by 
metonymy, when Divine acts and relations are spoken of, as any other 
hum.an title might be applied; that it is not ascribed to him simply 
because of his assuming our nature, as is supposed by some who admit 
the divinity of our Lord but deny his eternal filiation ; and that the use 
of the title cannot be fully explained by any office with which he is 
invested, or any event in his mediatorial undertaking. It follows, 
therefore, that it is a title characteristic of his mode of existence in the 
Divine essence, and of the relation which exists between the first and 
the second person in the ever blessed Trinity. 

It only remains for us now, 

III. To MAKE SOME REMARKS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING 
THE ORTHODOX VIEW RESPECTING THE SONSHIP OF JeSUS CHRIST. 

It is granted that some divines, truly decided on the question of our 
Lord's divinity, have rejected the Divine Sonship ; but in this they have 
gone contrary to the judgment of the Church of Christ in all ages, and 
would certainly have been ranked among heretics in her earliest and 
purest times. This consideration alone is worthy of attention, and 
ought to induce caution; but there are many considerations to show 



220 THE SONSHIP OF CHEIST. [Book IT. 

that points of great moment are involved in the denial or maintenance 
of the doctrine in question. A few of these we will present in the fol- 
io wing remarks : 

1. The loose and general manner in which many passages of Scrip- 
ture, which speak of Christ as a Son, must be explained by those who 
deny the Divine filiation of Christ, seems to sanction principles of inter- 
pretation which would be highly dangerous, or rather absolutely fatal, 
if generally applied to the Scriptures. 

2. The denial of the Divine Sonship destroys all relation among the 
persons of the Godhead. ~No other relation of the Divine persons is 
mentioned in Scripture except those which are expressed by paternity, 

filiation, and procession. If these natural relations are removed, we 
must then conceive of the persons in the Godhead as perfectly independ- 
ent of each other, a view which is incompatible with the unity of the 
Divine essence. 

3. It is the doctrine of the Divine paternity only which preserves 
the Scripture idea that the Father is \hs fountain of deity, and as such, 
the first, the original, the principle. He must have read the Scriptures 
to little purpose who does not perceive that this is their constant 
doctrine — that " of him are all things ;" that though the Son is Creator, 
yet by the Son the Father made .the worlds, and that " as the Father 
hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in him- 
self," which can only refer to his Divine nature, nothing being the 
source of life in itself but what is Divine. But where the essential 
paternity of the Father and the correlative filiation of the Son are 
denied, these Scriptural representations have no foundation in fact, and 
are incapable of interpretation. 

4. The perfect equality of the Son with the Father, and, at the 
same time, the subordination of the Son to the Father, are to be 
equally maintained only by the doctrine of the Divine Sonship. Deny 
this, and the Son might as well be the first as the second person in the 
Godhead, and the second as well as the first. The Father might have 
been sent by the Son without incongruity, or either of them by the 
Holy Spirit. These are most absurd and repulsive conclusions, which 
the doctrine of the Sonship avoids, and thus proves its accordance with 
the Holy Scriptures. 

5. A denial of the Divine filiation of Christ is derogatory to the love 
of the Father in the gift of his Son. It insensibly runs into the Socinian 
heresy, and restricts the Father's love to the gift of a mere man, if the 
Sonship of Christ is only human; and in that case, the permission of 
the sufferings of Christ was no greater manifestation of God's love to 
the world than if he had permitted any other good man to die for the 
benefit of his fellow-creatures. 



Chap 6.] THE PERSON OF CHRIST 221 



CHAPTEE VI. 

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

In the present day the controversy respecting the person of Christ is 
almost wholly confined to the question of his divinity ; but in the early 
ages of the Church it was necessary to establish his proper humanity. 
The denial of this seems to have existed as early as the time of St. John, 
who, in his epistles, excludes from the pale of the Church all who denied 
that " Christ is come in the flesh." As his Gospel, therefore, pro- 
claims his Godhead, so his* epistles defend also the doctrine of his 
humanity. 

As the Divine nature of Christ has been fully established, it is only 
necessary in this chapter to prove his true humanity, and to show that 
the two natures, the human and the Divine, are united in one person. 
But before we proceed to the discussion of these points it will be 
proper for us to notice, very briefly, 

I. A FEW OF THE LEADING ERRORS WHICH HAVE BEEN MORE OR LESS 
DISSEMINATED IN THE CHURCH RESPECTING THE PERSON OP CHRIST. 

These have related both to his human and his Divine nature. 

1. HJiTors in regard to the human nature of our Lord. — The Gnos- 
tics denied the real existence of the body of Christ. The things which 
the Scriptures attribute to his human nature they did not deny, but 
affirmed that they took place in appearance only. The source of this 
error appears to have been a philosophical one. Both in the Oriental 
and Greek schools it was a favorite notion, that whatever was joined 
to matter was necessarily contaminated by it ; and that the highest per- 
fection of this life was abstraction from material things, and in another, 
a total and final separation from the body. 

While the Gnostics denied the real existence of the body of Christ, the 
Apollinarians maintained that his body was endowed with a sensitive 
and not with a rational' soul, and that the Divine nature supplied the 
place of the intellectual principle in man. Thus both these views denied 
to Christ a proper humanity, and both were, accordingly, condemned 
by the general Church. 

Even among those who held the union of the Divine and the human 
nature in Christ, which in theological language is called the hypostatical or 
personal union, several distinctions Avere also made which led to a diver- 
sity of opinion. The N'estorians acknowledged two persons in our 
Lord, mystically and more closely united than any human analogy can 
explain. The Monophysites contended for one person and one nature, 



222 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

the two being supposed to be, in some mysterious manner, confounded. 
The Monothelites two natures and one will. 

2. Errors respecting the Divine Nature of Christ. — Among the 
various errors of this class, which formerly sprung up in the Church, 
three only can be said to have much influence in the present day, Arian- 
ism, Sabellianism, and Socinianism. The two former are now almost 
entirely merged into the last, whose characteristic tenet is the simple 
humanity of Christ. Arius, who gave his name to the first, seems to have 
wrought some of the floating errors of previous times into a kind of 
system, which, however, underwent various modifications among his 
followers. The distinguishing tenet of this system was that Christ was 
the first and most exalted of creatures ; that he was produced in a 
peculiar manner, and endowed with great perfections ; that by him God 
made the worlds ; that he alone proceeded immediately from God, 
while other things were produced mediately by him ; and that all things 
were put under his administration. 

The semi-Arians divided from the Arians, but still differed from the 
orthodox in refusing to admit that the Son was bfioovatog, or of the 
same substance with the Father; but they acknowledged him to be 
bfioiovoioc;, or of a like substance with the Father. It was only in 
appearance, however, that they came nearer to the truth than the 
Arians themselves, for they contended that this likeness to the Father 
in essence was not by nature, but by peculiar privilege. In their system, 
therefore, Christ was but a creature. 

A still further refinement on this doctrine was advocated by Dr. 
Samuel Clarke. His theory was that there is one Supreme Being who 
is the Father, and two subordinate, derived, and dependent beings. But 
he objected to call Christ a creature, thinking him something between 
a created and a self-existent nature. This hypothesis, however, still 
implies, unless an evident absurdity be admitted, that Christ is a created 
being. 

The Sabellian doctrine stands equally opposed to Trinitarianism and 
to the Arian system. It asserts the divinity of the Son and the Holy 
Spirit against the latter, and denies the personality of both in opposi- 
tion to the former. Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost are only denominations of one hypostasis ; in other words, that 
there is but one person in the Godhead, and that the Son and the Holy 
Spirit are virtues, emanations, or functions only ; that under the Old 
Testament God delivered the law as Father ; under the ISTew dwelt 
among men, or was incarnate as the Son ; and descended on the apos- 
tles as the Holy Spirit. In the early ages they were often called Patri- 
passians, because their scheme, by denying a real Sonship, obliged 
them to acknowledge that it was the Father who suffered for the sins of 
men. 

On the refutation of these errors it is not now necessary to dwell, 



Chap. 6.] THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 223 

both because they have at present but little influence, and chiefly because 
both are involved in the Socinian question, and are decided by the estab- 
lishment of the scriptural doctrine of a Trinity of Divine persons in the 
Unity of the Godhead. If Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God ; if he 
was " sent " from God and " returned " to God ; if he distinguished 
himself from the Father both in his Divine and human nature, saying, 
as to the former, " I and my Father are one," and as to the latter, " My 
Father is greater than I;" if there is any meaning at all in his declara- 
tion, that " no man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth 
any man the Father save the Son," words which cannot, by any possi- 
bility, be spoken of official distinction, or of an emanation or operation; 
then all these passages prove a real personality, and are incapable of 
being explained by a modal one. This is the answer to the Sabellian 
opinion; and as to the Arian hypothesis, it falls, with Socinianism, 
before that series of proofs which has already been adduced from the 
Scriptures to establish the eternity of our Lord, his consubstantiality 
and coequality with the Father, and, consequently, his Supreme 
Divinity. But, 

IT. We are to prove that our Lord was truly Man as well as 
God. 

That he assumed humanity, in the full and proper sense of that 
term, is, we think, abundantly evident from the following consider- 
ations : 

1. The prophets who predicted the coming of the Messiah often spoke 
of him as a Man. Hence he is represented as being the seed of the 
woman;* the seed of Abraham ;f a prophet like unto Moses ;J and "the 
son of David."§ 

2. He is called a Man, and the Son of Man, i?i a multitude of 
instances. — He is designated by the latter appellation no less than sev- 
enty-one times in the sacred Scriptures. In sixty-seven of these instances 
the title is employed by our Lord himself once by Daniel, once by St. 
Stephen, and twice by St. John. It must surely be acknowledged that 
in giving this appellation to himself he disclosed his true character, and 
that he w T as therefore, in reality, what he called himself, the Son of Man. 
When spoken of as a man he is ascribed with just such characteristics 
as belong to other men, those only excepted which involve error or sin. 
He is exhibited as meek, lowly, and dutiful to his parents ; as hunger- 
ing, thirsting, and being weary; as sustained and refreshed by food, 
drink, and sleep ; as the subject of temptations, infirmities, and afflic- 
tions; as weeping with tenderness and sorrow; and, in general, as hav- 
ing all the innocent characteristics of our nature. 

3. The history of the birth, life, and death of our Lord is unanswer- 
able proof that he was really Man. — He was born, he lived, and he died 
essentially in the same manner as other men. He " increased in wisdom 

* Gen. iii, 15. \ Gen. xxii, 18. \ Deut, xviii, 15. § Matt, xxii, 42. 



224 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

and stature ;" wrought with his hands ; ate, drank, slept ; suffered on 
the cross ; gave up the ghost, and was buried, as other men. 

4. The humanity of Christ is argued at large and proved by St. Paul 
in the second chapter of Hebrews. — In the passage containing this argu- 
ment are the following declarations : " Forasmuch then as the children 
are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of 
the same ;" and again, "in all things it behooved him to be made like unto 
his brethren." That Christ had a human body cannot be denied. It 
is equally undeniable that to increase in wisdom, to be sorrowful, to be 
tempted, to be obedient to parents, together with many other things of a 
similar nature, cannot be attributed either to God or to a mere human 
body, but are appropriate characteristics of the human soul. Christ, there- 
fore, possessed a human soul as well as a human body, and was perfectly 
man; or, as it is very properly expressed in the Shorter Catechism, 
he "became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable 
soul." 

While we maintain the integrity of Christ's human nature, we admit 
that he assumed it with all its innocent infirmities. He was not sub- 
ject to any of the sinful infirmities of man, nor was there any stimulus 
or incentive to sin in the constitution or temperament of his body. 
The Scriptures declare that he was "without sin;" that "in him is no 
sin ;" and that, though he came " in the likeness of sinful flesh," he was 
" holy, harmless, undefiled," and " separate from sinners." Nor does 
it appear that he was subject to any of those bodily diseases which are 
the portion of man. Infirmities of this kind would have discommoded 
him in the discharge of his duty, and he was exempted from them on 
account of his personal purity. But he was subject to hunger and 
thirst, to cold and heat, to pain of body arising from external injuries, 
and to distress of mind, from various causes. Against all such annoy- 
ances he might have been defended by the order of Omnipotence ; but 
this would not have accorded with the design of his mission. He sub- 
mitted to our infirmities that he might acquire an experimental knowl- 
edge of our sufferings, both corporeal and mental, and that we might 
be more fully assured of his sympathy. " We have not a high priest 
which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities j but was in 
all points tempted like as we are." Heb. iv, 15. 

III. We are to show that the Human and the Divine Nature 
of our Lord are united in one Person. 

The true sense of Scripture appears to have been very accurately 
expressed by the Council of Chalcedon, in the fifth century, that in 
Christ there is one person, in the unity of person two natures, the 
Divine and the human ; and that there is no change, or mixture, or con- 
fusion of these two natures, but that each retains its own distinguishing 
properties. With this agrees the Athanasian Creed; and the Church 
of England professes, in her second article, that " The Son, which is 



Chap. 6.] THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 225 

the word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the 
very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's 
nature in the womb "of the blessed Virgin of her substance ; so that 
two whole and perfect natures, that is, the Godhead and manhood, were 
joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one 
Christ, very God and very man." 

Whatever objections may be raised against these views by the mere 
reason of man, unable to comprehend mysteries so high, but often bold 
enough to impugn them, they certainly exhibit the doctrine of the New 
Testament on this important subject though expressed in different 
terms. That Christ is very God has been fully proved, and that he 
became truly man no one can reasonably deny. That he is but one 
person is sufficiently clear from these considerations: 1. That no 
distinction into two was ever made by himself or by his apostles. 
2. That actions peculiar to the Godhead are sometimes ascribed to him 
under his human appellations ; and, 3. That actions and sufferings pecul- 
iar to humanity are also predicated of him under Divine titles. 

That in him there is no confusion of the two natures is evident from 
the absolute manner in which both are spoken of in the Scriptures. 
His Godhead was not deteriorated by uniting itself with a human body, 
for he " is the true God ;" nor was his humanity, while on earth, 
exalted into properties which made it differ in kind from the humanity 
of his creatures ; for, " as the children were partakers of flesh and 
blood, he also took part of the same." If the. Divine nature in him 
had been imperfect it would have lost its essential character, for it is 
essential to Deity to be perfect ; if any of the essential properties of 
human nature had been wanting he would not have been man ; and if 
the Divine and the human nature had been mixed or confounded in him 
he would have been neither God nor man. Nothing was deficient in 
his divinity, nothing in his humanity, and yet he is one Christ. 

It is only in the light of these two circumstances, the completeness of 
e^ach nature and the union of both in one person, that the testimony 
of God concerning his Son can be consistently explained. Some things 
which are spoken of Christ relate to his Divine, others to his human 
nature ; and he who takes with him this principle of interpretation 
will seldom find any difficulty in apprehending the sense of the sacred 
writers, though the subjects themselves may be inscrutable. 

1. Does any one ask, for instance, If Jesus is truly God how could 
he be born and die ? how could he be subject to law ? how could he 
grow in wisdom and stature ? how could he be tempted, or stand in 
need of prayer ? how could his soul be " exceeding sorrowful even unto 
death ?" how could he purchase the Church with u his own blood ?" 
The answer is, that he was also man. 

But if, on the other hand, it be a matter of surprise that a visible 
man should heal diseases at his will, and by his own power, still the 

15 



226 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. [Book II. 

winds and the waves, know the thoughts of men, authoritatively forgive 
sins, be with his disciples, wherever two or three are met in his name, 
claim universal homage from all creatures, and be associated with the 
Father in solemn ascriptions of glory and thanksgiving : what is the 
answer ? The only one explanatory of all these statements is, that our 
Lord Jesus Christ is God as well as man. But, 

2. The union of the two natures of Christ in one person is as essen- 
tial as the completeness of each nature to the full exposition of the 
Scriptures. Without it many passages lose all force, because they 
lose all meaning. In what possible sense could it be said that "the 
Word was made flesh " if no such personal unity existed ? Without 
the hypostatical union, how could the argument of our Lord be sup- 
ported, that the Messiah is both David's Son and David's Lord ? If 
this is asserted of two persons, then the argument is gone ; if of one, 
then two natures, one which had authority as Lord, and the other capa- 
ble of natural descent, were united in one person. 

By this doctrine we also learn how it was that "the Church of God" 
was " purchased with his own blood." Even if we concede the genu- 
ine reading to be " the Lord," instead of " God," the concession 
yields nothing to the Socinians, unless the term Lord were a human 
title, which has already been disproved ; and unless a mere man could 
be " Lord both of the dead and living," could wield universal sover- 
eignty, and be entitled to universal homage. If, then, the title "Lord" 
be an appellation of Christ's superior nature, in no other sense could it 
be said that the Church was "purchased with his own blood" than by 
supposing the existence of that union which we call personal, a union 
which alone distinguished the sufferings of Christ from those of his 
martyred followers, gave to his sufferings a merit which theirs had not, 
and made his blood capable of purchasing the Church. 

Again: "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express 
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, 
when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand 
of the Majesty on high." Heb. i, 3. To this passage, also, the hypostati- 
cal union is the only key. Of whom does the apostle speak when he 
says, " when he had by himself purged our sins," but of him who is 
" the brightness of" the Father's glory, " and the express image of his 
person ?" He " by himself purged our sins ;" yet this was done by 
the shedding of his blood. In that higher nature, however, he could 
not suffer death, and nothing could make the sufferings of his humanity 
a purification of sins by himself but such a union of the two natures 
as should constitute one person. For, unless this be allowed, either the 
characters of divinity in this passage are characters of a being merely 
human, or else Christ's higher nature was capable of suffering death ; 
or, if not, the purification was not made by himself, which yet the text 
affirms. 



Chap. 7.] THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 227 

Another passage of Scripture which may be noticed in this connection 
is Col. i, 14, 15: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, 
even the forgiveness of sins : who is the image of the invisible God, the 
first-born of every creature." In this passage the lofty description 
which is given of the person of Christ stands in immediate connection 
with the mention of the efficacy of "his blood," and is to be considered 
as the reason why, through that blood, redemption and remission of 
sins became attainable. Thus, " without shedding of blood" there could 
be " no remission ;" but the blood of Jesus only is thus efficacious, who 
is " the image of the invisible God," the " Creator " of all things. His 
blood it could not be but for the hypostatical union, and it is equally 
true that were it not for this union he could not have had any blood to 
shed ; because, as "the image of the invisible God," that is, God's equal, 
or God himself, he was incapable of death. 

Thus it is by the union of the Divine and the human nature in one 
person that our Lord is qualified to be the Saviour of the world. He 
became man that, with the greatest possible advantage to us, he might 
teach us the nature and the will of God ; that his fife might be our 
example ; that his acquaintance with human infirmities might assure us 
of his sympathy ; that by suffering on the cross he might atone for our 
sins ; and that in his glorious reward we might behold both the earnest 
and the pattern of ours. 

But had Jesus been only a man, or had he been even one of the spirits 
that surround the throne of God, he could not have accomplished the 
work of human redemption. For, the entire obedience of every crea- 
ture being due to the Creator, no part of that obedience can be placed 
to the account of other creatures so as to supply the defects of their 
service, or to rescue them from deserved punishment. But the Scrip- 
tures declare that the Redeemer who appeared upon earth as man is 
also God, mighty to save ; and by this revelation we are taught that 
the efficacy of his interposition in our behalf depends upon the hypostat- 
ical union. 



CHAPTER VII. 

PERSONALITY AKD DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 

The discussion of this point of Christian doctrine may be included in 
much narrower limits than those which have been assigned to the divin- 
ity of Christ, because many of the principles on which it rests have 
been already closely considered, and because the Deity of the Holy 
Spirit, in several instances, inevitably follows from that of the Son. It 



228 PERSONALITY AND DEITY [Book II. 

will, however, be necessary to show that the Holy Ghost is a person, 
and that he is God. 

As to the manner of his being, the Orthodox doctrine is, that as Christ 
is God by an eternal filiation, so the Holy Spirit is God \>j procession 
from the Father and the Son ; which procession rests on direct scrip- 
tural authority. It is expressly asserted that the Holy Ghost proceeds 
from the Father. " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send 
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth 
from the Father, he shall testify of me." John xv, 26. And though the 
Scriptures do not expressly declare that the Holy Ghost proceeds from 
the Father and the Son, yet they evidently teach that doctrine. Because 
he proceeds from the Father, he is called the Spirit of the Father and 
the Spirit of God.* But the same Spirit is also called the Spirit of 
the Son and the Spirit of Christ ;f and, therefore, there must be 
the same reason presupposed in reference to the Son as is expressed 
in reference to the Father. If the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of 
the Father because he proceeds from the Father, it will follow that 
he is called the Spirit of the Son because he proceeds also from the Son. 

Again, because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father he is spoken 
of as being sent by the Father. " The Comforter, which is the Holy 
Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all 
things." John xiv, 26. But the same Spirit which is sent by the Father 
is also sent by the Son, as he said, " When the Comforter is come, whom 
I will send unto you." As, therefore, the Scriptures expressly declare 
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from, the Father, so do they also virtually 
teach that he proceeds from the Son. 

Arius regarded the Spirit not only as a creature, but as created by 
Christ ; thus making him the creature of a creature. Some time after- 
ward his personality was wholly denied by the Arians, and he was con- 
sidered as the exerted energy of God. This appears to have been the 
notion of Socinus, and, with occasional modifications, has been adopted 
by his followers. They sometimes regard him as an attribute, and at 
others they resolve the passages in which he is spoken of into a figure 
of speech. 

Having made these preliminary remarks, we will proceed to establish 
the proper Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost. 

I. His Personality. 

With respect to the Personality of the Holy Ghost, it may be 
observed, 

1. That it follows from the mode of his subsistence in the Sacred 
Trinity. — He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and, therefore, 
cannot be either. To say that an attribute proceeds or comes forth 
from God would be a gross absurdity. Accordingly, our Lord most 
clearly represents the Holy Ghost as the third person of the Divine 
* See Matt, x, 20 ; 1 Cor. ii, 12. f See Rom. viii, 9 ; Gal. iv, 6. 



Chap. 7.] OF THE HOLY GHOST. 229 

essence, and as distinguished personally from the Father and the Son. 
His language is, " I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another 
Comforter, that he may abide with you forever." This " Comforter," 
said he, " is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name." 
John xiv, 16, 26. Here he calls the first person, most expressly and 
undeniably, " the Father," and the third person, as expressly, " the 
Holy Ghost." It is, therefore, most evident, and beyond even the possi- 
bility of a doubt, that he does not, by these two appellatives, mean one 
and the same Divine person. 

2. That many Scriptures are wholly unintelligible, and even absurd, 
unless the Personality of the Holy Ghost is allowed. — Those who 
understand the phrase as ascribing merely a figurative personality to 
the energy or power of God, reduce such passages as the following to 
an utter want of meaning : " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the 
Holy Ghost and with power ;" that is, with the power of God and 
with power. " That ye may abound in hope, through the power of the 
Holy Ghost ;" that is, through the power of the power of God. " It 
seemed good to the Holy Ghost," that is, to the power of God, " and 
to us." 

3. That in some passages in which the Holy Ghost is spoken of 
personification of any hind is impossible. — The reality, which this sup- 
posed figure of speech is said to represent, is either an attribute of God, 
or else the doctrine of the Gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried upon 
a few passages. "He (the Spirit) shall not speak of himself, but 
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak." What attribute of God 
can here be personified ? And if the doctrine of the Gospel be arrayed 
with personal attributes, where is there an instance of so monstrous a 
prosopopaeia as this passage would present ? the doctrine of the Gos- 
pel not speaking " of himself," but speaking " whatsoever he shall 
hear !" " The Spirit maketh intercession for us." What Divine attri- 
bute is capable of interceding, or how can the doctrine of the Gospel 
intercede ? 

Personification, too, is the language of poetry, and takes place natu- 
rally only in excited and elevated discourse ; but if the Holy Ghost is a 
personification, we find it in the New Testament, in the cool and ordi- 
nary strain of mere narration and argumentative discourse, and in the 
most incidental conversations.* 

4. That there have been distinct symbolical representations of the 
Holy Ghost. — At the baptism of our Lord, while the Father, by an 
audible voice declared, "This is my beloved Son," the Spirit "de- 
scended like a dove, and lighted upon him." Matt, iii, 16, 17. And on 
the day of Pentecost also, the communication of the Spirit to the 
apostles was represented by "cloven tongues like as of fire." Acts ii, 8. 
St. Peter's exposition of this miracle proves that the Spirit, though act- 

* See Acts viii, 29; xix, 2. 



230 PERSONALITY AND DEITY [Book II. 

ing in union with the Father and the Son, was yet a different person. 
" This Jesus," said he, " being by the right hand of God exalted, and 
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed 
forth this which ye now see and hear." Acts ii, 33. These appearances, 
we allow, were merely emblematical of the Spirit's operations, and can- 
not convey to us any adequate conception of his real nature, or the 
mode of his existence, but they are nevertheless strong indications of 
his distinct personality. 

5. And finally, that the Holy Ghost is a person, and not an attri- 
bute, is proved by the use of masculine pronouns and relatives in the 
Greek of the New Testament, in connection with the neuter noun 
7xvev\ia, Spirit, and by so many distinct personal acts being ascribed to 
him ; as, to come, to go, to be sent, to teach, to guide, to comfort, to 
make intercession, to bear witness, to give gifts, " dividing them to 
every man as he will," to be vexed, grieved, and quenched. These 
cannot be applied to the mere fiction of a person, and they therefore 
establish the true personality of the Holy Spirit. 

II. The Deity of the Holy Spirit. 

That the Holy Spirit is really God, admits of so little doubt that his 
divinity is acknowledged even by many who deny his personality. 
But to place this doctrine in as clear a light as possible, we will adduce 
the leading arguments by which it is supported. And, 

1. The names which are applied to the Holy Spirit clearly indicate 
his Divine character. — He is denominated Goo. "Why hath Satan 
filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? Thou hast not lied unto 
man, but unto God." Acts v, 3, 4. The spiritual gifts which the Cor- 
inthians received are all declared to be the work of "that self-same 
Spirit ;" and yet concerning these operations St. Paul as expressly 
asserts, that "it is the same God which worketh all in all." 1 Cor. 
xii, 6-11. Moreover, to be "born of the Spirit," and to be "born of 
God," are convertible phrases.* He is also called Lord. " Now the 
Lord is that Spirit." 2 Cor. iii, 17. 

2. The Attributes which are ascribed to him proclaim his Divinity. — 
Eternity is his, for he is called " the Eternal Spirit." Heb. ix, 14. He 
is Omnipresent. "Your body," says the apostle, "is the temple of the 
Holy Ghost which is in you." 1 Cor. vi, 19. And again, "As many 
as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Rom. viii, 14. 
Now, as all true Christians are temples of the Holy Ghost, and are led 
by him, he must be present with them at all times and in all places. He 
is also Omniscient ; for, " the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep 
things of God." 1 Cor. ii, 10. The moral attributes of God are also given 
to him. Holiness, which includes all in one : the Holy Ghost is his 
eminent designation. Goodness : " Thy Spirit is good." Grace : he is 
" the Spirit of Grace." Truth also, for he is " the Spirit of Truth." 

* See John iii, 5, 6, 8; 1 John v, 1, 4, 18. 



Chap. 7.] OF THE HOLY GHOST. 231 

3. His icorJcs are unequivocal attestations of his Divinity ; for they 
are such as no finite being can perform. 

(1.) Creation is ascribed to him. "He garnished the heavens," and 
" moved upon the face of the waters," to reduce the chaotic mass to 
order, and to impregnate dead matter with life and animation.* Nor 
is it an objection to the argument, that creation is ascribed to the 
Father, and also to the Son, but a confirmation of it, for that creation 
should be effected by all the three persons of the Godhead, so that 
each should be a Creator, and, therefore, a Divine Person, can be 
explained only by their unity in one essence. If the Spirit of God were 
a mere influence or attribute he could not be a Creator, distinct from 
the Father and the Son. But that creation is ascribed to him is evi- 
dent, not only from the passages just quoted, but also from the language 
of the Psalmist: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, 
and all the host of them by the breath (Heb. Spirit) of his mouth" 
Psa. xxxiii, 6. This is further confirmed by Job xxxiii, 4 : " The Spirit 
of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given 
me life." Here, the latter clause is obviously exegetical of the former, 
and the whole text proves, that in the patriarchal age believers in the 
true religion ascribed creation to the Spirit, as well as to the Father ; 
and that one of his appellations was "the Breath of the Almighty." 
But as we have seen him acting in the material creation, so he is the 
author of the new creation, which is as evidently a work of Divine 
power as the former. 

(2.) Preservation, which has been well denominated a continued 
creation, is also ascribed to the Holy Spirit. — This is beautifully pre- 
sented in the following passage : " Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, 
they are created, (or reanimated^) and thou renewest the face of the 
earth." Psa. civ, 30. It cannot here be meant that the Spirit, by 
which the generations of animals are perpetuated, is wind ; nor can the 
term denote a mere attribute of God, for the Scriptures nowhere teach 
that he sends forth his attributes to renew the face of the earth. 

(3.) It belongs to the Spirit to raise the dead. — " It is the Spirit," 
said our Lord, "that quickeneth." John vi, 63. Peter testifies that 
Christ was " put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 
1 Peter iii, 18. St. Paul assures us that at the last day our scattered 
dust shall be collected and reanimated by the same Divine agent. " He 
that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken' your mortal 
bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Rom. viii, 11. 

(4.) He is the source of inspiration to the prophets. — St. Paul says 
that "God spake unto the fathers by the prophets." Heb. i, 1. St. 
Peter declares that these " holy men of God spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost;" 2 Peter i, 21 ; and also that it was " the Spirit 
of Christ which was in them." 1 Peter i, 11. We may defy any Socin- 
* See Gen. i, 2 ; Job xxvi. 13. 



232 PERSONALITY AND DEITY [Book II. 

ian to interpret these three passages, by making the Spirit an influence 
or attribute, and thereby reducing the term Holy Ghost to a figure of 
speech. " Qod" in the first passage, is unquestionably God the Father, 
and the "holy men of God," the prophets, would then, according to 
this view, be moved by the influence of the Father ; but according to 
the third passage, the source of their inspiration was "the Spirit of 
Christ." Thus the two passages contradict each other. Allow the 
Trinity in Unity, and there is no impropriety in calling the Spirit the 
Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, or the Spirit of either. 
But if the Spirit were an influence, that influence could not be the influ- 
ence of two persons, one God and the other a creature. If, however, 
the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, united in one 
essence, the passages are easily harmonized; for, in conjunction with 
the Father and the Son, he is the source of prophetic inspiration, and is 
therefore Divine. 

4. The last argument for the divinity of the Holy Ghost is founded 
on the fact that he is the object of supreme worship. We are taught 
throughout the Scriptures to seek for the influences of the Spirit by fer- 
vent prayer ; to depend upon him for the mortification of sin, and for 
our growth in holiness ; and to yield ourselves with unfeigned submis- 
sion to his direction.* 

We have an example of prayer to him in the following words, which 
are still used in the solemn benediction of the Church : " The grace of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love God, and the communion of the 
Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." 2 Cor. xiii, 14. Here the Holy 
Ghost is acknowledged as the source of spiritual blessings, as well as the 
Father and the Son, and is invoked in the same spirit of devotion. It 
is vain to call this merely a wish. It is as distinctly a prayer as any 
other that occurs in the Scriptures ; and there would be no question about 
its nature if there were no design to evade the force of its evidence. 

The form of baptism is also demonstrative of the divinity of the Holy 
Spirit. It is the form of covenant by which the sacred Three become 
our one and only God, and we become his people. " Go ye, therefore, 
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt, xxviii, 19. How is this 
text to be disposed of if the divinity of the Holy Ghost is denied ? Does 
the form of baptism imply that persons are to be baptized in the name 
of one God, one creature, and one attribute? An opinion so grossly 
absurd is its own refutation ; for, in the case before us, there can be no 
personification. If, then, all the Three ar»e persons, is Christian baptism 
to be administered in the name of one God and two creatures f This 
would be downright idolatry. It follows, therefore, that in this single 
passage of Scripture we have a most convincing proof of the divinity of 
the Spirit, as well as of the Father and the Son. 

* See Luke xi, 13; Rom. viii, 13, 14; Gal. v, 25. 



Chap. 7.] OF THE HOLY GHOST. 233 

It may also be observed in this connection that what the Scriptures 
declare respecting the sin against the Holy Ghost proves him to be the 
object of supreme worship, and therefore Divine. "But whosoever 
speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in 
this world, neither in the world to come." Matt, xii, 32. This crime con- 
sisted in ascribing to Satan the miracles which our Lord wrought by 
the power of the Holy Ghost. But if to "speak against the Holy 
Ghost " was a sin in the proper sense, and of so malignant a kind as to 
place it beyond the reach of mercy, he can be no other than the very 
and eternal God. 

It follows, therefore, in conclusion, that our regards are justly due to 
this Divine Person as the object of worship and trust, of prayer and 
blessing — duties to which we are especially called, both by the general 
consideration of his divinity and by that affectingly benevolent and 
attractive character under which he is presented to us in the holy Scrip- 
tures. In creation we see him moving upon the face of chaos, and 
reducing it to beauty and order ; in providence, renewing the earth, gar- 
nishing the heavens, and giving life to man. In grace we behold him 
expanding the prophetic scene to the vision of the seers of the Old Tes- 
tament, and making a perfect revelation of the doctrines of Christ to the 
apostles of the New. He reproves the world of sin, working in the 
human heart a secret conviction of its evil and danger. He is " the 
Spirit of grace and supplication ;" and from him are the softened heart, 
the yielding will, and all heavenly desires and tendencies. He hastens 
to the troubled spirit of penitent men, who are led by his influences to 
trust in Christ, with the news of pardon ; bearing witness with their 
spirit that they are the children of God. He helps their infirmities ; 
makes intercession for them ; inspires thoughts of consolation and feel- 
ings of peace ; plants and perfects in them whatsoever things are pure, 
lovely, honest, and of good report ; dwells in the soul as in a temple ; 
and, after having rendered the spirit to God, without " spot, or wrinkle, 
or any such thing," finishes his benevolent and glorious work by raising 
the bodies of the saints, at the last day, to immortality and eternal life. 
So powerfully does " the Spirit of glory and of God " claim our love, 
our praise, and our obedience ! Hence, in the forms of the Christian 
Church he has been constantly associated with the Father and the Son 
in equal glory and blessing ; and this recognition of the Holy Spirit 
ought to be made in every gratulatory act of devotion, that so equally 
to each person of the eternal Trinity glory may be given "in the 
Church throughout all ages. Amen." 



234 THE DECREES 0¥ GOD. [Book II. 



CHAPTEK VIII. 

THE DECEEES OE GOD. 

We have hitherto considered God with regard to his existence, his 
nature and attributes, and the manner of his subsisting in a Trinity of 
Persons ; but we will now proceed to contemplate him in his acts or 
efficiency. 

The acts of God are, in theological language, either internal or exter- 
nal. His internal acts are either those which belong to himself alone, 
as the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost ; 
or those which take place in himself with respect to external objects. 
Such are his decrees " which he hath purposed in himself." Eph. i, 9. 

The external acts of God are those exertions of his power which ter- 
minate upon his creatures. These are comprehended in his works of 
creation and providence. 

As it is reasonable to believe that God does nothing without previous 
deliberation, and thence resolving upon what his infinite wisdom per- 
ceives to be best, which resolves have obtained among divines the name 
of decrees, it will be proper, before we consider his external acts, to 
present a scriptural view of these decrees ; and to this subject our 
attention will be directed in the present chapter. We will first prove 
their existence, and secondly, inquire into their nature and properties. 

I. The Existence of the Divine Decrees. 

No one who believes God to be an intelligent being, and who con- 
siders what intelligence implies, will deny that there are Divine decrees. 
As God knew all things that his power could accomplish, there were 
undoubtedly reasons which determined him to do certain things in 
preference to others, and his choice, which was founded upon those rea- 
sons, was his purpose or decree. 

It will certainly be admitted, that God intended to create the 
world before he actually created it; that he intended to make 
man before he fashioned his body, and breathed into him the 
breath of life ; and that he intended to govern the world according to 
certain laws. It will be admitted also, that when he resolved to create 
the world, to make man, and to establish laws physical and moral, he 
had some ultimate object in view. Having constructed a machine and 
set it in motion, he knew what would be the result ; and this result 
was the true reason or the final cause why the machine was con- 
structed. This intention of God is, therefore, his decree. 

To this general idea of the Divine decrees it would be unreasonable 
to object, because it is as necessarily forced upon our mind as the idea 
of a purpose in the mind of a wise man previous to his entering upon 



Chap. 8.] THE DECREES OF GOD. 235 

any important enterprise ; and with this idea the teachings of the holy- 
Scriptures are in perfect harmony. They speak of the purpose of God, 
his will, his good pleasure, his determinate counsel, and his predestina- 
tion. " All things work together for good to them that love God, to 
them who are called according to his purpose." Rom. viii, 28. " Paul, 
an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God." 2 Cor. i, 1. " Having 
made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good 
pleasure which he hath purposed in himself." Eph. i, 9. " Him being 
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye 
have taken," etc. Acts ii, 23. " Having predestinated us unto the 
adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself." Eph. i, 5. But it is 
unnecessary to multiply quotations. These Scriptures clearly prove, as 
do many others, that the operations of God are not the effects of neces- 
sity, but of counsel and design. 

H. The Nature and Properties of the Divine Decrees. 

The decrees of God may be denned to be, his purposes or determina- 
tions respecting his creatures. For this reason they are sometimes 
called the counsel, and sometimes the will of God ; terms which are 
never applied to necessary things, but only to the determinations of 
free agents. 

When the Scriptures represent the decrees of God as his counsel, the 
word is not to be taken in its common acceptation, as implying consult- 
ation with others ; nor is it to be understood as denoting reflection, 
comparison, and the establishment of a conclusion by logical deduction. 
But the decisions of an infinite mind are instantaneous ; and they are 
called counsel, to signify that they are consummately wise. 

Nor are we to conclude, because the decrees of God are denominated 
his will, that they are arbitrary decisions ; but merely, that in making 
them he was under no control, but acted according to his own sover- 
eignty. When a man's own will is the rule of his conduct, it is in many 
instances capricious and unreasonable ; but wisdom is always associated 
with will in the Divine proceedings. Accordingly, the decrees of God 
are said to be " the counsel of his will." 

But in considering more particularly the nature and properties of the 
Divine decrees, it may be remarked, 

1. That they are eternal. — This is virtually taught by the apostle 
when he says, " Known unto God are all his works from the beginning 
of the world." Acts xv, 18. The passage clearly imports, that at the 
commencement of time the plan was arranged according to which the 
works of God were to be executed. To suppose any of the Divine 
decrees to be made in time, is to suppose that the knowledge of God is 
limited ; that he receives accessions to it in the progress of time, and 
that he forms new resolutions as new occasions require. Surely no one 
who believes that the Divine understanding is infinite, comprehending 
the past, the present, and the future, will ever assent to the doctrine of 



236 THE DECKEES OF GOD. [Book II. 

temporal decrees. If God has any plan at all, it must be eternal ; and 
hence St. Paul speaks of " the eternal purpose which he purposed in 
Christ Jesus our Lord." Eph. iii, 11. 

2. The decrees of God are free. — By this we are to understand, that 
his determinations were not necessitated by any external cause, that he 
was at liberty to decree or not to decree, and to decree one thing and 
not another. This liberty we must ascribe to Him who is supreme, 
independent, and sovereign in all his dispensations. "Who hath 
directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counselor hath taught 
him ? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and 
taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and 
showed to him the way of understanding ?" Isa. xl, 13, 14. 

To deny the freedom, of the Divine decrees is the same as to assert 
that they could not have been different from what they are. But are 
we prepared to adopt this sentiment ? * As well might we affirm that 
God could not have performed the work of creation sooner or later than 
he did ; that he could not have made the world in any respect different 
from what it is ; that he could not have placed man in a higher or lower 
degree in the scale of being; and that, when he had fallen, he could not 
have done otherwise than to redeem him by the death of his Son. • Such 
a view of necessity, however, in regard either to the operations or the 
purposes of God, is both contrary to Scripture, and injurious to the feel- 
ings of piety, and must, therefore, be rejected. 

We assert, then, that the decrees of God are free. No necessity can 
be supposed to influence the procedure of a self-existent and independ- 
ent Being, except the necessity arising from his own perfections, of 
always acting in a manner worthy of himself. To his infinite under- 
standing there must have appeared more than one way of doing this ; 
and though there were doubtless reasons for the choice which he made, 
it would be boldness, not to be vindicated from the charge of impiety, 
to say that he could not have made a different choice. 

3. The decrees of God are immutable. — This characteristic of the 
Divine decrees results from the infinite perfection and immutability of 
God; for if the least change should take place in his plans and determ- 
inations, it would be an instance of imperfection. The mutability of 
human purposes is owing to the uncertainty and defectiveness of human 
knowledge ; but God knows with absolute certainty all things that ever 
were, now are, or ever shall be, and his purposes must therefore con- 
tinue the same, amid all the changes of created things. " He is of one 
mind, and who can turn him?" Job xxiii, 13. "The counsel of the 
Lord standeth forever ; the thoughts of his heart to all generations." 
Psalm xxxiii, 11. He declares, " My counsel shall stand, and I will do 
all my pleasure." Isa. xlvi, 10. 

To the immutability of the Divine decrees it has been objected that 
the Scriptures represent God, in some cases at least, as changing his 



Chap. 8.] THE DECREES OF GOD. 237 

purpose. For instance, lie said to King Hezekiah, " Set thine house in 
order ; for thou shalt die and not live." But afterward he said to him, 
" I will add unto thy days fifteen years." 2 Kings xx, 1, 6. Again, God 
commanded Jonah to say to the people of Nineveh, "Yet forty days, and 
ISTineveh shall be overthrown." But when he saw that " they turned 
from their evil way," he " repented of the evil that he had said that he 
would do unto them; and he did it not." Jonah iii, 10. 

To meet the objection, and to reconcile these and all similar cases with 
the immutability of God's purposes, it is only necessary to observe, first, 
that the objector confounds two things which are essentially different, 
the Divine purpose, and the Divine administration. The former is noth- 
ing more than the plan according to which God operates as the Creator 
and Governor of the world ; while the latter consists in his actual opera- 
tion in accordance with this plan. Secondly, that man is a free moral 
agent, and is, therefore, governed by laws and motives adapted to his 
moral constitution ; and that the purpose of God extends to the whole 
duration of his existence, and not merely to some particular period of it. 
Hence it is easy to conceive, in view of the condition ality of God's 
moral government and of the mutability of man, that the Divine admin- 
istration respecting him may at one time be very different from what it 
is at another ; while in both cases it accords with the immutability of 
the Divine decrees. 

For the sake of illustration, we may remark that the law which at one 
time protects a man in the possession of civil liberty may, at a subsequent 
period, condemn him to death. Would this imply a change in the law ? 
By no means. The law would continue the same — the only change 
would be in the subject who should incur its penalty. When man was 
created he was placed under a law, in obedience to which he enjoyed 
life in its highest sense ; but under the operation of that same law he 
became liable to death spiritual, temporal, and eternal. Did the law 
change? No; but man changed by disobeying it, and thus subjected 
himself to its curse. If, then, it is consistent with the immutability of 
God's law that the same moral agent should at one time be acquitted and 
at another time condemned, it may be equally consistent with the immu- 
tability of his decrees ; for of these his revealed will is only the formal 
declaration. 

When, therefore, we meet with passages of Scripture in which a 
change of the Divine purpose seems to be indicated, as in the case of 
Hezekiah, or in which God is said to repent, as it is asserted of him in 
regard to the inhabitants of Nineveh, we must understand them to imply 
a change of the Divine administration, but not of the Divine purpose. 
It is to be remembered that in many of the most positive declarations 
of Scripture there are implied conditions. Thus, when God said to the 
Jewish king, " Thou shalt die, and not live," it was only the announce- 
ment of what must have been the inevitable consequence of his sickness 



238 THE DECREES OF GOD. [Book II. 

had it not been divinely prevented. But as Hezekiah did not believe 
the sentence to be unconditional, he " prayed unto the Lord " and 
" wept sore ;" and God regarded his supplications, removed his disease, 
and added to his " days fifteen years." So also in the case of the Nine- 
vites the threatening was conditional, as the event clearly proves ; con- 
sequently, when they " turned from their evil way " they escaped the 
threatened judgment. 

4. The decrees of God have been considered by theologians as either 
Absolute or Conditional. 

(1.) Absolute decrees are such as relate to those events in the Divine 
administration which have no dependence upon the free actions of moral 
creatures. These decrees are not called absolute, however, because they 
were made in the exercise of mere arbitrary power ; but because, though 
made in view of wise and good reasons, the execution of them is not 
suspended upon any condition that may or may not be performed by 
moral creatures, but is to be ascribed to Divine agency. Thus, the pur- 
pose of God to create the world, to send his Son to redeem it, to bestow 
Gospel privileges upon one people and to deny them to another, and 
all his determinations of this nature, are called absolute decrees. 

(2.) Conditional decrees are those in making which God had respect 
to the free actions of his moral creatures. Of this class are the pur- 
poses of God respecting the eternal welfare of men. They are 
founded upon that foreknowledge of men's moral actions which we 
are compelled to ascribe to God, and are never absolute, but always 
conditional. We must not conclude, however, as some have done, that 
conditional decrees are necessarily uncertain and mutable. They no 
more involve the idea of mutability than do those that are absolute. 
To the mind of God the end is as certain in one case as in the other, the 
only difference being in the means by which it is brought about. In 
absolute decrees God has respect to his own agency alone ; in those that 
are conditional, to the agency of his free moral subjects; but in neither 
case can uncertainty or mutability be justly ascribed to them. God fore- 
saw from eternity how every man would act, and whether he would com- 
ply with the conditions under which the designs of God concerning him 
would take effect or would reject them; and upon this perfect fore- 
knowledge were his decrees founded. It is on this account, therefore, 
and this alone, that they are denominated conditional. 

It is maintained by some that the foreknowledge of God is dependent 
upon his decrees. " If we allow the attribute of prescience" says Mr. 
Buck, " the idea of a decree must certainly be allowed also ; for how 
can an action that is really to come to pass be foreseen if it be not 
determined ? God knew everything from the beginning ; but this he 
could not know if he had not so determined it," This notion, though 
advocated by high authority, we must regard as both absurd in itself and 
contrary to Scripture. It is absurd in itself, because it makes an essen- 



Chap. 8.] THE DECREES OF GOD. 239 

tial attribute of God depend upon his efficiency. " God could not have 
known everything from the beginning if he had not so determined it." 
Thus the Divine prescience is brought into existence by an exercise of 
the Divine mind, in decreeing " whatsoever comes to pass." Again, if 
" God foresees nothing but what he has decreed, and his decree pre- 
cedes his knowledge," as Piscator tells us, then it follows that, as 
the cause cannot be dependent on the effect, God must have made his 
decrees and contrived his plans independent of his knowledge, which 
only had an existence as the effect of these decrees. But if these con- 
clusions are absurd, so must that doctrine be also of which they are the 
legitimate consequences. 

This notion is, moreover, contrary to Scripture. St. Paul says, Rom. 
viii, 29, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be con- 
formed to the image of his Son ;" and St. Peter, in addressing believers, 
calls them " elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." 
1 Peter i, 2. In these passages the decree of predestination or election 
is clearly founded on the foreknowledge of God. He foreknew in order 
to predestinate, but he did not predestinate in order to foreknow. Now 
as St. Paul tells the Christians at Rome that they were predestinated 
according to Divine foreknowledge, and St. Peter informs those in Asia 
Minor that they were elected in the same way, it follows either that all 
the elect are thus chosen, or that God pursued one plan in electing the 
Christians of Rome and Lesser Asia, and a different one for the rest of 
the world. But as the latter cannot be true, the former must be admit- 
ted. It is therefore evident that, in the order of cause and effect, the 
exercise of the Divine attributes is consequent upon their existence; that 
the plan of the Almighty is the result of his infinite knowledge ; and 
that the decrees of his throne flow forth from the eternal fountain of his 
wisdom. 

The conditionality of the Divine decrees, so far as they relate to the 
eternal destiny of men, may be argued, first, from the manner in which 
God actually saves sinners. Does he effect their salvation imcojidition- 
ally f We answer, that he never would have saved men had not 
Christ died for them. This, then, is a condition of human salvation, 
the grand event on account of which God forgives sin. But does God 
actually save sinners without any condition on their part f The Bible 
furnishes the answer : " Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 
Luke xiii, 3. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi, 16. "If thou wilt 
enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt, xix, 17. The condi- 
tions, then, of eternal life are repentance, faith, and obedience. These 
conditions, it is true, are of a different nature from the atonement ; but 
they are equally necessary. Hence we come to the conclusion, that, as 
the actual salvation of men is conditional, the decrees of God respecting 
it are conditional also. 



240 THE DECREES OF GOD. [Book II. 

It must be admitted, that the manner in which God will distribute 
happiness and misery in the future world is the precise mode which he 
eternally intended to pursue. If, then, it can be made appear that he 
certainly will reward men according to their works, it will follow that 
he eternally purposed to do so. But the Scriptures do most explicitly 
declare that God " will render to every man according to his deeds ;" 
that every man shall " receive the things done in his body, according 
to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad ;" and that " whatso- 
ever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Therefore, as it is certain 
that God will, in the world to come, treat men according to their moral 
conduct here, it follows that he always intended to do so ; and if the 
decrees of God relative to men's future destiny were thus based upon 
their foreseen voluntary actions, they may be properly denominated con- 
ditional. 

Secondly, the view which we have taken of this subject is further 
confirmed by what we know of the character of God. The Scriptures 
declare that " God is love ;" that he " is good to all, and his tender 
mercies are over all his works ;" and that he has " no pleasure in the 
death of him that dieth." How, then, could he have decreed to consign 
millions of the human family to endless perdition regardless of their 
conduct ? Or, how could he place men under circumstances in which 
they must inevitably continue in sin, and then punish them in hell for- 
ever for not exercising that repentance and faith which he determined 
never to give them ? The Scriptures assert that God is " long-suffer- 
ing to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should 
come to repentance." But how could his bearing with the non-elect be 
properly an act of long-suffering, if he had determined to withhold for- 
ever from them that special grace by which alone they could repent, 
however long he might wait with them? How could the inspired 
apostle say that God is " not willing that any should perish," if from 
all eternity he had doomed, unconditionally, a large portion of the 
human family to endless misery ? How could he assert the willingness 
of God " that all should come to repentance," if he had unconditionally 
determined to leave millions of our race in that moral condition in which 
true repentance is impossible ? 

Moreover, what sincerity could there be in the proclamation of the 
" Gospel to every creature," if God had determined by an absolute 
decree the eternal destiny of all men % The Gospel would offer a free 
and full salvation to those for whom no provision had been made in the 
redeeming plan, and life eternal to those who had been ordained to 
eternal death. And how can we reconcile with the justice and impar- 
tiality of God the opinion, that while he calls men into existence with a 
fallen and depraved nature, he should, irrespective of their conduct, 
elect some to everlasting life and consign others to hell ? " God is no 
respecter of persons ; but in every nation he that feareth him, and 



Chap. 8.] THE DECREES OF GOD. 241 

worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." How could this be said 
if God had made among his creatures a distinction of such incalculable 
magnitude and eternal duration as would be implied in the uncondi- 
tional salvation of some, and unavoidable damnation of others ? 

The conclusion, then, of the whole matter is this : that though we 
ascribe to God decrees which are absolute and unconditional, yet, so 
far as they relate to the eternal destiny of men, they were formed in full 
view of men's free moral actions, and are, therefore, conditional. Prop- 
erly speaking, however, these decrees cannot be said to depend on any 
thing but God himself, who perfectly knew from the beginning what 
would be the nature and consequences of every future occurrence. 

"We will close this chapter by a brief notice of the distinction which 
some theologians make between the revealed will of God, and what 
they are pleased to call his secret will. If this distinction were based 
upon the opinion, that God has plans and purposes which he has not 
fully revealed to mankind, it might very readily be allowed ; for the 
Scriptures declare that " secret things belong unto the Lord our God ; 
but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children." 
Deut. xxix, 29. It is generally assumed, however, by the advocates of 
this distinction, that the secret will of God is, in many cases, directly 
contrary to what he has revealed in his word. For instance, God " will 
have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 
1 Tim. ii, 4. This is acknowledged to be his revealed will; but it is 
nevertheless contended that his secret will is, that many of the human 
race should not " be saved," or " come to the knowledge of the truth," 
but perish forever. • 

To this view of the secret will of God we object, for several reasons : 
1. It is wholly gratuitous. There is not a single passage of Scripture 
which, when fairly interpreted, teaches the doctrine that the will of 
God is in any case contrary to his word. 2. It is absurd in itself. We 
can become acquainted with the purposes of God only so far as they 
are revealed. Of his secret or unrevealed will we can know nothing. 
If, therefore, we assume, in any given case, that the secret will of God 
is contrary to what he has revealed, we virtually assume that we know, 
by some means or other, what the secret will of God is, and conse- 
quently that it is both secret and revealed at the same time, which is 
a contradiction. But, 3. This opinion is dishonorable to the Divine 
character. It represents God as having two wills, which are in many 
cases contrary to one another, as declaring in the most solemn manner 
that he has " no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," while it is 
according to his secret will that multiplied thousands should die eter- 
nally. We conclude, therefore, that this theory is untenable, and that 
we can only judge of the will of God by what he has revealed. 

16 



242 CREATION. [Book II. 



CHAPTER IX. 

OF CREATION. 

Having considered in the preceding chapter the decrees of God, we are 
naturally led to speak, in the next place, of those exertions of his 
power which terminate upon created objects. Our attention shall be 
directed, in this chapter, to the work of Creation; which we will con- 
sider, first, in general, and secondly, in particular. 

§ 1. Of Creation in General. 

In the investigation of this part of the subject it will be proper to 
inquire into the nature, the date, and the extent of creation. 

I. The Nature of Creation. 

Here it is necessary to ascertain what the precise idea of creation is, 
or the sense in which the term create is to be understood, when it is 
employed to denote the agency of God in the production of the universe. 
The original word is a^O, which signifies, in its primary sense, to cause 
a thing to exist or spring forth from nothing. But it means also, to 
form a thing out of existing materials, to revive or reinvigorate, and to 
effect a change in our moral nature, as when a new heart is said to be 
created within us. 

When it is said, in the first of Genesis, that " God created the heav- 
ens and the earth," the word is to be taken in its primary sense, as 
denoting the original production of matter by Almighty power ; while 
the subsequent verses inform us by what steps God formed this mass of 
rude matter into that beautiful system of nature which excites the 
admiration of every beholder. "In the beginning," or at the com- 
mencement of time, he made out of nothing the matter of which the 
heavens and the earth were composed, and upon which their present 
form was afterward superinduced. This seems to be the natural way 
of explaining this part of sacred history ; and according to this view, 
the Bible opens with an ascription to God of the act of creation in the 
highest sense of the term. 

There is another passage of Scripture which will assist us in ascer- 
taining the sense in which God is said to have created the world. 
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the 
word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things 
which do appear." Heb. xi, 3. Here we learn that the visible creation 
was not formed out of pre-existent matter. For, if it had been so 



Chap. 9, §1.] CREATION IN GENERAL. 243 

formed, that matter, however extended or modified, would still appear 
in the present system ; but the apostle asserts, that " the things which 
are seen [the visible creation] were not made of things which do appear" 
It follows, therefore, that he virtually denies the eternity of matter, 
and asserts the creation of all things out of nothing, " by the word of 
God." 

By creation, then, we are to understand that act of God by which 
he gave existence to the world, or to things extrinsic to himself; or, as 
it is commonly expressed, by which he made the world out of noth- 
ing. Accordingly, the holy Scriptures constantly describe God as the 
creator of the world ; not merely in regard to its present form, but of 
the materials themselves from which it is formed.* 

The Grecian philosophers and other ancient writers, being ignorant 
of Divine revelation, and guided only by the wild speculations of their 
own imagination, had no just idea of creation in its proper sense. They 
insisted upon the principle, ex nihilo nihil fit ; and could not admit, 
therefore, that it was possible for God to create the world out of noth- 
ing. Accordingly they believed almost universally that matter, in a 
chaotic state, existed from all eternity ; and that God only arranged 
and moulded the discordant materials, so as to bring order out of con- 
fusion, and cause the universe to appear in its harmony and beauty. 
With them God was merely the builder, and not the creator of the 
world. 

It is easy to show, however, that this notion of the eternity of matter 
is absurd and untenable. To suppose that matter existed from eternity 
is to ascribe to it self-existence. For, that which existed from eternity 
could not have been produced by anything else. The only cause of its 
existence, therefore, must be in itself; and this implies that it is self- 
existent and independent. 

Again, if matter is self-existent and independent, as its eternity clearly 
implies, it must exist necessarily. For, if the cause of its existence has 
always been in itself, it could not but have existed ; otherwise, the 
necessary connection between cause and effect would be destroyed. 

But if matter exists necessarily, this necessity must be the same 
everywhere. Consequently, upon this supposition, matter must have 
existed everywhere, or must have filled every portion of space, and have 
been infinitely extended ; which is absurd, and contrary to fact. 

There is another consequence which is equally absurd, that, if matter 
exists necessarily, that necessity must extend to all its properties. But 
if so, the particular state in which it exists must be necessary ; and 
then, the same eternal necessity which determined the state of its exist- 
ence must determine its continuance in that state. Consequently, if 

* The phrase, to create from nothing, does not occur in the canonical Scriptures, though 
the idea itself is scriptural. It seems to have been taken from 2 Mace, vii, 28, in the 
Vulgate ; " ex nihilo fecit Deus codum et terram." 



244 CREATION. [Book II. 

matter had existed from eternity in a chaotic state, it must have con- 
tinued in that state until no%- ; and upon this hypothesis the worlds 
could not have been produced from chaotic matter. 

Some have adopted the theory that the material universe has existed 
from eternity in its organized condition ; but this hypothesis is as 
unreasonable as the former. For, 

1. It is inconsistent with the nature of time, which is a succession 
of moments. — " We can conceive time to commence at any given period, 
and to run on ad infinitum, or never to come to an end ; but we cannot 
conceive it to be actually infinite. An infinite duration can never be 
made up of finite parts ; because as each of those parts has an end, the 
sum which they compose must also have an end. As it is impossible 
that an infinite succession of moments can be past, it is impossible that 
the universe can have existed from eternity."* 

2. The eternity of the world in its organized state is disproved by 
the history of arts and sciences. — It is but reasonable to suppose that 
each generation would profit by the labors and experience of preceding 
generations, and that human society should be characterized from age 
to age by progressive improvement. But we know that civilization 
and learning can be traced back only to a period which is but as yester- 
day, and that all the great and important discoveries in the arts and 
sciences are of comparatively recent date. These facts strongly indi- 
cate, therefore, that only a few thousand years have elapsed since our 
earth and its inhabitants came into existence. 

3. Another argument against the eternity of the world in its organ- 
ized state is founded on the comparatively modern date of authentic 
history. — No credible history reaches further back than the period 
which Moses has assigned for the creation ; and profane history has 
nothing to relate but fables and rumors till the age of Herodotus, who 
flourished about five hundred years before the Christian era. These 
facts would be unaccountable if the earth and man had existed from 
eternity ; for then we might readily suppose that history, either recorded 
or monumental, would carry us back for thousands of centuries. 

Such are some of the speculations of heathen philosophers in regard 
to the visible creation, and of the numerous difficulties in which their 
theories are involved. But if we follow the principles of philosophy in 
its present improved state, or rather, if we follow the Bible, to which 
alone our modern philosophy is indebted for its improvement, we will 
not admit the maxim ex nihilo nihil fit in reference to the creation of 
the world. This maxim is indeed incontrovertible, when applied to 
material causes ;f but it is not true, if understood of an efficient cause 

* Dick's Theology, Lecture 3?. 

\ The material cause of a thing is that out of •which it is made. For example, the mar- 
ble out of which a statue is made is its material cause ; but the sculptor who forms the 
statue is its efficient cause. 



Chap. 9, § 1.] CKEATION IN GENERAL. 245 

to which omnipotence is ascribed. Consequently, if our theory respect- 
ing God and his attributes is well established, this principle applied to 
him as the efficient cause of the world must be regarded as false. For, 
if God is omnipotent, he can from nothing produce something, or bring 
into existence what did not exist before. Moreover, if it is true that 
matter is not necessary, it cannot exist of itself, but must derive its 
existence from God, or depend upon him, who at first created it out of 
nothing. 

The truth that God created from nothing everything that exists, is 
the uniform doctrine of the Bible; but it is a doctrine which was 
unknown to the ancient philosophers long after it had been taught by 
the writers of the Jewish Scriptures. Indeed, it is from these Scriptures 
that our modern philosophers have derived, however unwilling they are 
to confess it, all their better views upon this subject. To the sacred 
writers, therefore, we owe the doctrine that God gave existence to what 
was not. 

II. The Date of Creation. 

According to the Hebrew chronology, as ascertained by Archbishop 
Usher, the creation took place four thousand and four years before the 
Christian era ; but according to the Septuagint, five thousand two hundred 
and seventy years. It is easy to determine which of these computations 
should be preferred. The original, when all the copies agree, is surely 
higher authority than any translation ; and especially the Septuagint, 
which is probably the most inaccurate of all translations. Accordingly 
the computation of Usher has been generally received as reliable. 

But here we are encountered by the pretended discoveries of modern 
science. The observations which geologists have made upon the struc- 
ture of the earth are supposed to contradict the Mosaic account, by prov- 
ing that it must have been created at a more distant period, if it was 
created at all ; and that it must have undergone many revolutions prior 
to what we call the beginning. By some the Mosaic account is rejected 
entirely ; while others suppose it to be a record, not of the original crea- 
tion of the earth, but of the changes which took place upon it after some 
terrible convulsion. Thus, in the language of Cowper, 

" Some drill and bore 
The solid earth, and from the strata there 
Extract a register, by which we learn 
That He who made it, and revealed its date 
To Moses, was mistaken in its age." 

Geologists talk much of primitive formations. They ascribe the 
origin of rocks to precipitation and crystallization. Looking at a piece 
of granite they point out the characters of aqueous or igneous fusion, 
and say that it was formed by the agency of water or fire, carried on 
through a long process, which it required ages to complete ; and from 
such data they come to the conclusion that a much longer period was 



246 creation. [Book II. 

necessary to form the rocks and strata of the earth than the Scriptures 
assign. Thus puny mortals, with but a spark of intellect, and only a 
moment for observation, deem themselves fully authorized, from a mere 
glance at a few superficial appearances, to contradict the account which 
Moses gives of the world's creation. " Where wast thou," said the 
Almighty to Job, " when I laid the foundations of the earth ? Declare, 
if thou hast understanding." Job xxxviii, 4. 

It is easy to show that the main geological argument for the great 
age of the world is without any solid foundation. It is not denied that 
the various formations of the earth, so far as they have been examined, 
appear as if they had been produced by chemical laws. But is it there- 
fore certain that they were so produced ? Why may we not suppose 
that God created everything in agreement with the action of those natu- 
ral laws which he imparted to matter, and which he evidently intended 
to operate in the physical world? Why may we not suppose, for 
instance, that rocks were at first formed so as to correspond with all the 
phenomena of precipitation and crystallization? No one but an Atheist 
will deny that this was possible ; but if it was possible the argument from 
primitive formations, against the comparatively modern date of the 
earth, falls to the ground. 

That there was a first man will be admitted by all who believe in the 
existence of a great First Cause. Now, if we had the opportunity of exam- 
ining one of- his bones we should doubtless perceive that it resembled, 
in all respects, the bones of other men ; and, reasoning according to our 
geologists, we should conclude that its fibers were at first soft, that they 
gradually became cartilage, and that they finally acquired the hardness 
of their perfect state. But we should reason falsely, because that bone 
was at once made solid and firm. Could we examine the first tree that 
God created, we should perceive that it indicated, like any other tree, 
the growth of successive years. We would naturally conclude, there- 
fore, if we had no knowledge of its history, that it had originally sprung 
from a seed, and that it had come to a state of maturity by the usual 
process ; while the fact would be that it had been produced in a moment. 
In the former case we would have all the apparent effects of ossification, 
and in the latter, of lignification, while it is certain that these processes 
never took place. It follows, then, that sensible phenomena cannot alone 
determine the age of the world, or the mode of the earth's formation- 
Some, unwilling to reject the history of Moses in regard to the origin 
of the world, have attempted to reconcile it with the popular theory, 
by supposing that the six days of creation were not natural days of 
twenty-four hours, but so many periods of indefinite length. They 
assume that the world must have been created at an earlier date than 
the literal interpretation of the history assigns to it, and that ages were 
necessary to give rise to those appearances which are observed in its 
structure. 



Chap. 9, § 1.] CEEATION IN GENEKAL. 247 

To this notion we reply, first, that there is no necessity for such an 
interpretation of the days of Moses, or for supposing the original chaos 
to have been an immense laboratory, from which, after the operations of 
ages, the earth came forth as we now see it. There was a Power ade- 
quate to create it at once — a Power which formed the primeval rocks 
without the aid of fire or water, as it made perfect bones and perfect 
trees, independent of those second causes by which they are now pro- 
duced. But, secondly, this view of the subject is objectionable because 
it puts a meaning upon the word day which it bears nowhere else in 
simple narrative, and for which there is no authority in the Bible. 
Indeed, when we consider the distinct manner in which the day is 
defined, as "the evening and the morning," if the term were not to be 
taken in its literal sense, we could hardly vindicate the sacred historian 
from an intention to mislead. 

It must not be forgotten in our geological investigations that the 
earth was at first in all probability in a fluid state ; and, also, that it 
must have undergone various and great changes at the time of the 
deluge. It is impossible to conceive the modifications which must have 
been produced in its structure by the breaking up of "the fountains of 
the great deep," and by the irresistible action of such an immense body 
of water as submerged the entire globe. We may not be able to answer 
all the objections which geologists urge against the literal interpretation 
of the Mosaic history ; but neither can they prove that the appearances 
upon which they found their theories did not result from those facts. 

We conclude, therefore, that the language of Moses is to be taken in 
its literal sense when he says, " In six days the Lord made heaven and 
earth ;" and that the account which he gives of the origin of the world 
is the only rational theory that has ever been presented. If in any 
opposing scheme philosophers were generally united, their opinion 
would have great force ; but their theories are different and contra- 
dictory. What one builds up another destroys ; while the narrative of 
Moses stands unmoved, like a rock amid the waves of the ocean, rest- 
ing on the solid basis of all the proofs by which its Divine authority is 
established. % 

Thus the heavens and the earth were created about four thousand 
years before the birth of Christ. The materials themselves were pro- 
duced out of nothing in an instant by the power of God ; but six days 
were employed in moulding them into that harmonious and beautiful 
system of nature which we call the universe. On the first day light 
was created; on the second the atmosphere; on the third the water 
was collected into lakes and seas, and the dry land appeared, which 
was immediately covered with grass, herbs, and trees ; on the fourth 
the sun, the moon, and the stars became visible ; on the fifth the waters 
and the air were replenished with inhabitants ; and on the sixth terres- 
trial animals and man were created. 






248 creation. [Book II. 

III. The Extent of the Creation. 

The sacred historian, in speaking of" the creation of the universe, 
adopts the common and obvious division of it into two parts, the earth 
and the heavens. The earth, indeed, is but a small part of the universe; 
but as it is the allotted habitation of the human race, it was proper 
that it should be distinctly noticed and particularly described. 

All the other parts of creation are comprehended under the term 
heavens, which signifies, in the language of the Jews, the atmosphere ; 
the region of the sun, moon, and stars ; and lastly, the habitation of the 
blessed. The atmosphere properly belongs to the earth, and appears 
to have been the work of the second day, when God said, " Let there 
be a firmament in the midst of the waters ; and let it divide the waters 
from the waters." Gen. i, 6. The word 3>*i?1, which is rendered firma- 
ment, signifies an expanse or space / a term which very aptly denotes 
the atmosphere as surrounding the earth, and extending to a great dis- 
tance from its surface. This is the region in which clouds and meteors 
are formed, and in which the water exhaled from the earth and the sea 
is suspended till, condensed by cold, it falls down in dew and rain. 

But the term heavens includes the sun, moon, and stars. The sun is 
the great source of light to our system ; and the moon, though proba- 
bly created as soon as the earth, is said to have been made on the 
fourth day, because it then only became visible by reflecting the rays 
of the sun.* Under the denomination of the stars are included, not 
only those luminaries which are properly so called, but the planets also 
which belong to our system. The Bible gives no further account of 
these heavenly bodies than that some of them were appointed "for 
signs, and for seasons, and for days and years." Any additional inform- 
ation respecting them is derived from observation and reasoning; 
and though the discoveries of modern science make no part of theology, 
yet they are worthy of attention because they have a tendency to exalt 
our ideas of the power and beneficence of the Creator. 

As the planets are removed from us many millions of miles, they 

* Though the sun is the principal source of light, yet he is not the only source from 
which it flows. There is light produced by the ignition of combustible substances, light 
struck out from hard bodies by percussion or friction, phosphoric light, and electric light. 
As there is at present light without the sun, there may have been light without him in 
the beginning, as recorded by Moses ; nor can we now tell whether light proceeds from 
his body or from his atmosphere. But, however this may be, it seems reasonable to 
suppose that the sun was created at the same time with the earth, though he was not 
made the grand repository of light until the fourth day. It is asserted that " in the 
beginning God created the heaven" as well as "the earth." Moreover, the earth could 
not have occupied its proper place in the system if it had been created before the sun, 
for by the latter the former is retained in its orbit. But this matter is perfectly plain if 
we suppose that the sun was created at the same time with the earth, and that it was not 
till the fourth day that he was made a luminous body; for the influence which he exerts 
upon the earth depends upon his solid mass, not upon his light. 



Chap. 9, § 2.] CREATION IN PARTICULAR : ANGELS. 249 

would not be visible if their magnitude were not great. But how 
much greater must be the magnitude of the fixed stars, the distance of 
which from the earth is immense, when compared with that of the 
utmost planet which revolves around the sun ! It is natural to inquire, 
For what purpose were these fixed stars placed in the heavens ? It was 
surely not to give light to the earth, for their light is of but little 
account to us. JSTor was it to mark the progress of the seasons and the 
revolution of the year, for this is done by the sun and the changes 
which take place on the face of the earth. Were they then created in 
vain ? Shall we suppose that He who made the earth for great and 
benevolent purposes, and made the sun to give it light, could have 
created millions of suns for no assignable end ? Such a conclusion 
would charge the God of nature with folly, and be at variance with the 
proofs of intelligence and design which are so amply supplied by all his 
other works. 

The opinion, therefore, that around those suns planets revolve, the 
inhabitants of which rejoice in their light and are cheered by their 
influence, is not a mere flight of fancy, but rests upon strong grounds 
of belief; and while this theory vindicates the wisdom of God, it leads 
us to admire his infinite goodness, which diffuses life and happiness far 
beyond the reach of the eye or even the range of imagination. Thus 
the universe presents itself to our view in all its magnificent and 
immeasurable extent; and while we raise our thoughts to Him who 
spoke.it into being, we are constrained to exclaim, "O Lord, how 
manifold are thy works ! in wisdom hast thou made them all." Psa. 
civ, 24. 

But in the last place the term heavens includes that region of peace, 
and purity, and joy, where God manifests himself in all his glory to his 
perfect creatures. This must be a place, because human beings now 
dwell in it, and because it is to be the abode of the righteous after the 
resurrection. Jesus said to his disciples, " I go to prepare a place for 
you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and 
receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." John 
xiv, 2, 3. This is sometimes called the third heaven, of which the holy 
of holies in the Jewish tabernacle and temple was an interesting type. 
Where this place is, however, cannot be determined, and conjectures 
respecting its location are more curious than edifying. 

§ 2. Of Creation in Particular. 

Creation, considered particularly, respects those intelligent and moral 
beings whom God has brought into existence. They are comprehended 
in two general classes, angels and men. As the Bible furnishes some 
account of both these classes of beings, we will endeavor to ascertain, 
to some extent, the important information which is thus placed within 



250 CEEATION. [Book II. 

our reach. But as the doctrines respecting man will constitute a sepa- 
rate book, we will confine our remarks, in this section, to that class of 
created intelligences called angels. 

The word angel is derived from the Greek avyeXoe, and is a name 
not of nature, but of office. It corresponds with "ra^to in Hebrew, and 
literally signifies a messenger, or one sent on an embassy. The term is 
sometimes applied to men who are invested with authority over others, 
as "the Angels of the seven Churches," who were probably their 
bishops or presidents ; but it is generally used in Scripture to designate 
a superior order of intelligences who inhabit the heavenly world. 

That there are such beings as those whom we call angels, in the 
common acceptation of the term, is evidently taught in the Bible. It 
might, therefore, seem impossible for any one to deny their existence 
who believed the Scriptures to be worthy of credit; and yet, as St. 
Luke informs us, the Sadducees asserted that there was " neither angel 
nor spirit." There have been some in modern times also who have 
coincided with the Sadducees in denying the existence of angels, affirm- 
ing that when they are spoken of as real beings the term is to be 
understood in a figurative sense. Thus we are told that good angels 
signify good thoughts, and evil angels sinful thoughts. But with such 
as make thus free with the Scriptures, and subvert their plainest teach- 
ings, it would be useless to reason; for if the Bible history of the exist- 
ence and doings of angels is to be understood in a figurative sense, 
we may as well discard the whole volume of revelation as an idle 
dream. 

But relying upon what God has revealed concerning this class of his 
moral creatures, and understanding this revelation in its plain and 
obvious sense, we will proceed to offer such remarks as will elicit all 
the leading features of their history. 

From the Bible we learn that angels are divided, in reference to 
their moral condition, into holy and unholy, or into good and evil. Let 
us, then, inquire briefly concerning each of these classes. 

I. Of Holy Angels. 

These are so denominated because they have continued in that state 
of holiness or moral purity in which they were originally created ; and 
also, to distinguish them from the apostate "angels which kept not 
their first estate." In our remarks respecting them we will-notice, 

1. The time of their Creation. — To the question, When were the 
angels created ? we can return only a general answer. Of this event 
Moses has given us no information, unless, with some, we suppose 
angels to be included in the host of heaven / but this phrase seems 
rather to signify the celestial luminaries, the sun, moon, and stars. We 
have no reason to think, however, that the creation of angels preceded 
the time to which Moses refers in the first chapter of Genesis. A prior 
date has been assigned by many ; but it is a mere conjecture, and seems 



Chap. 9, § 2.] CREATION IN PARTICULAR : HOLY ANGELS. 251 

to be at variance with the general language of Scripture. The sacred 
historian does most certainly teach that the heavens were created at 
the same time with the earth ; and though he takes no notice of the 
inhabitants of the heavenly world, yet there is ground to believe that 
they also were created at the same time. On what day they were 
created is a question of mere curiosity ; but it is supposed by many 
that God spoke of the angels when he said to Job, " Where wast thou 
when I laid the foundations of the earth ? when the morning stars sang 
together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy ?" Job xxxviii, 4, 7. 
If by the morning stars, and the sons of God, the angelic host is 
meant, which seems to be probable, it will follow that the angels were 
present when the mighty fabric of the universe was completed, and that 
they celebrated, on that occasion, the praises of the Divine Architect. 

2. Their Natural Attributes. — Of angels it may be affirmed that they 
are spiritual beings, that they are immortal, that they are highly intelli- 
gent, and that they possess astonishing power and activity. 

(1.) They are spiritual beings. — As such they are represented in 
the fourth verse of the hundred and fourth Psalm, which is quoted in 
Heb. i, 7 : " Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame 
of fire."* Angels, then, are spirits ; and no better definition of a spirit 
can be given than the one presented by our Lord, though it is of the 
negative kind, when he said to his terrified disciples, " Handle me, and 
see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke 
xxiv, 39. It would be in vain for ns to inquire into the essence of a 
spirit, because it is perfectly beyond our grasp ; but it is not more so 
than is the essence of matter, of which we know only the properties. 

(2.) They are immortal. — The immortality of angels may be inferred 
from the language of our Lord respecting the future condition of the 
righteous. " Neither can they die any more ; for they are equal unto 
the angels." Luke xx, 36. It may be supposed that their immortality 
is the natural consequence of their immateriality ; but the proper ground 
is the will of God. He willed that the angels should never die, even 
though they should sin ; but in this respect they have no pre-eminence 
above the souls of men, which are not injured by the stroke of death, 
but merely separated from those portions of matter which they had 
animated for a time, and are destined to animate again. 

(3.) They are highly intelligent. — The superior intelligence of 
angels maybe argued: 1. From their spirituality. Their spiritual 
nature is not weighed down by the frailties of weak and perishing 
bodies. 2. From their superior order. They are confessedly creatures 
of a higher order than men ; and it is, therefore, reasonable to believe 
that the degree of intelligence which they possess is in proportion to 
the superiority of their rank. 3. From the place of their abode. 
Their proper home is the heaven of heavens, where they ever behold 
the face of God, and dwell amid the effulgence of heavenly light. The 



252 CKEATION. [Book II. 

angel who appeared to Zachariah in the temple said, "I am Gabriel, 
that stand in the presence of God." 4. From their long observation and 
experience. A capacity to increase in knowledge enters into the very 
nature of rational creatures, and this is surely as true of angels as it is 
of men. For multiplied ages they have been gazing upon the unfolding 
attributes of God, and winging their unwearied flight to various and 
distant parts of heaven's dominions, to execute the Divine will, and to 
witness the wonders of the Divine administration. To what lofty 
heights, then, must they be elevated in regard to knowledge and wis- 
dom ! That the Jews believed in the superior knowledge of angels, is 
evident from the words of the woman of Tekoah to David : " My lord is 
wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things 
that are in the earth." 2 Sam. xiv, 20. 

(4.) They possess astonishing power and activity. — In Psalm 
ciii, 20, David exclaims, " Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in 
strength /" and St. Paul tells us that " the Lord Jesus shall be revealed 
from heaven with his mighty angels" 2 Thess. i, 7. Strong angel and 
mighty angel are phrases in the Apocalypse which are expressive of 
the same character. 

Proofs of the power with which these exalted beings are endowed 
are in several instances recorded in the Scriptures. It is highly prob- 
able that when " the Lord slew all the first born in the land of Egypt" 
in a single hour it was done by the ministry of an angel, who is, there- 
fore, called "the destroyer." Exod. xii, 23. An angel destroyed seventy 
thousand persons in three days in consequence of the sin of David in 
numbering the people. And an angel put to death in one night of the 
army of Sennacherib a hundred and eighty-five thousand. These 
instances show that angels possess a power which to us is utterly 
incomprehensible. 

But their activity is equally wonderful. Their nature, in this respect, 
is briefly described in Psalm civ, 4 : " Who maketh his angels spirits, 
and his ministers a flaming fire." The word here rendered spirits most 
commonly signifies winds. But in either sense the phraseology forcibly 
declares the eminent activity of angels, who are thus represented as 
moving with the swiftness of winds, or of that which is peculiar to 
spirits, and as operating with the astonishing energy of flaming fire. 
Moreover, they are represented as flying on wings ; and as they are 
purely spiritual in their nature, we may suppose that they can travel 
from world to world with the velocity of thought. Of this we have a 
striking instance recorded in the ninth chapter of Daniel. From this 
remarkable passage we learn that Daniel set himself to seek the Lord in 
fasting and prayer ; that after his prayer was begun the Angel Gabriel 
was commanded to visit him with a message of Divine instruction ; and 
that ere his supplication was closed the angel touched him " about the 
time of the evening oblation." Hence, during the time in which Daniel 



Chap. 9, § 2.] CKEATION IN PAKTICULAR: HOLY ANGELS. 253 

was employed in uttering his prayer, Gabriel came to him from the 
heavenly world. This is a rapidity of motion which exceeds all com- 
prehension of the most active imagination; surpassing, "beyond any 
comparison, the amazing swiftness of light. 

3. Their Moral Condition. — In regard to the moral condition of 
angels we may remark, 

(1.) That they are holy beings. — Such they must have been when 
they came from the hand of the Creator ; and such they have continued 
to be, though others have fallen into sin. Hence they are expressly 
denominated by our Lord u the holy angels." Matt, xxv, 31. They are 
also called the "ministers of" God, "that do his pleasure," (Psa. ciii, 21 ;) 
and they are placed before us, in the prayer which Christ taught his 
disciples, as patterns of holy obedience. " Thy will be done in earth as 
it is in heaven." Matt, vi, 10. 

The holiness of angels may be inferred from their place of residence. 
Heaven is a holy place, and no unholy being can ever dwell in that holy 
habitation. This has been the home of the holy angels for almost six 
thousand years, and in no instance have they done anything displeasing 
to God. They were no doubt tempted ; but they indignantly resisted 
the solicitation of counsel and example. They have witnessed many a 
foul display of human and angelic depravity, but they have not received 
the slightest moral taint. 

(2.) Angels are benevolent beings. — It is in general true that the 
more men are advanced in holiness the more pleasure they take in the 
welfare of others, and in the diffusion of morality and piety. But if 
this is the case with men it must be eminently so with the holy angels. 
We see here why the plan of human redemption engages their atten- 
tion, and fills them with delight and wonder. It is a subject which 
"the angels desire to look into." 1 Pet. i, 12. The chorus in which 
"the heavenly host" united, when celebrating the nativity of our Lord, 
is beautifully expressive of angelic piety and benevolence. " Glory to 
God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men." Luke 
ii, 14. Our Lord tells us that "there is joy in the presence of the 
angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." Luke xv, 10. 

(3.) They are happy beings. — This maybe inferred from the holiness 
of their nature. With them the recollection of the past creates no 
remorse, and the prospect of the future awakens no fear or anxiety. 
They have always served God with fidelity, and they will always enjoy 
his love. They drink immortal joys from the pure fountain of bliss, and 
feast continually on the enrapturing visions of the Divine glory.* Nor 
is their happiness impaired by their visits to earth. The offensive 
scenes which they here behold must excite their strong disapprobation, 
but they cannot produce the least disquieting emotion. They have acts 
of vengeance to perform ; but as they detest sin, and glow with zeal 

* See Matt, xviii, 10. 



254 CREATION. [Book II. 

for the honor of God, they perform with pleasure any service which he 
requires. 

4. Their great number. — The numerousness of angels is most 
clearly taught in the Scriptures, which everywhere represent God as 
being surrounded by a great multitude of heavenly servants, or, as they 
are called by Jacob, " God's host."* " The chariots of God," says the 
psalmist, " are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels : the Lord is 
among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place." Psa. lxviii, 17. The same 
truth is set forth in the language of our Lord. "Thinkest thou that I 
cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more 
than twelve legions of angels ?" Matt, xxvi, 53. St. John tells us that 
he "beheld, and heard the voices of many angels round about the 
throne, and the beasts and the elders ;" and that " the number of them 
was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands." 
Rev. v, 11. 

5. Their Employment. — It is the employment of the holy angels, 
(1.) To glorify God, and to celebrate his praise.-— When. God laid 

the foundations of the earth these morning stars rejoiced together 
and shouted for joy. When on Mount Sinai, amid thuuderings and 
lightnings, and a flame of devouring fire, he published his holy law, 
" the chariots of God, even the thousands of angels," attended him at 
this awful solemnity. When the Son of God became incarnate an 
angel proclaimed his birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, and " a mul- 
titude of the heavenly host " praised God on that occasion in the noblest 
hymn that earth ever heard. And when he ascended on high, having 
finished the work of redemption, the same exalted beings attended him, 
singing, as they approached the heaven of heavens, "Lift up your 
heads, O ye gates ! and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors ! and the 
King of Glory shall come in." Psa. xxiv, 7. So, also, their constant 
employment in their heavenly home is to praise and worship God.f 

(2.) Angels are employed in studying God's works and dispensa- 
tions. — St. Paul tells us that " God created all things by Jesus Christ ; 
to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly 
places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God." 
Eph. iii, 9, 10. And as God designed that a knowledge of his dispensa- 
tions to the Church should be made known to the angelic host, " the 
principalities and powers in heavenly places," so we learn that the dis- 
position of angels is in perfect accordance with this design. " Which 
things the angels desire to look into " 

(3.) Angels are employed in executing the judgments of God upon 
men. — The first judgment inflicted upon man — his exclusion from Par- 
adise — appears to have been committed to the ministry of angels. In 
like manner they were the immediate instruments in the infliction of 
Divine vengeance on the Israelites, on the army of Sennacherib, on 
* Gen. xxxii, 2. \ See Rev. v, 11, 12; vii, 11, 12. 



Chap. 9, § 2.] CREATION IN PARTICULAR: HOLY ANGELS. 255 

Nebuchadnezzar, and on Herod. In the same manner, also, they are 
represented in the Apocalypse as pouring out the vials of Divine wrath 
upon the nations of our guilty world. 

(4.) Angels are also employed in ministering to the people of God. — 
"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who 
shall be heirs of salvation?" Heb. i, 14. Here we are plainly taught 
that to minister to the saints is a standing employment of angels. 
Accordingly they are exhibited in Jacob's vision of the ladder (Gen. 
xxviii, 12) as ascending from earth to heaven, and descending from 
heaven to earth, in the discharge of this great duty ; and the Scriptures 
furnish numerous examples of their actual ministry to the children of 
God. 

First, in revealing to them the Divine will. An angel instructed 
Abraham, Joshua, David, Elijah, Daniel, Zechariah the prophet, Zacha- 
riah the father of John the Baptist, the Virgin Mary, and others. It 
was an angel that conducted Joseph and Mary to Egypt, Philip to the 
eunuch, and Cornelius to Peter. So also it was by the ministry of an 
angel that God revealed his will to John in the isle of Patmos. 

Secondly, in protecting and delivering them from evil. " There shall 
no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling ; 
for he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy 
ways." Psa. xci, 10, 11. The angel of the Lord encampeth round about 
them that fear him, and delivereth them." Psa. xxxiv, 7. Thus angels 
delivered Lot from Sodom, Jacob from Esau, Daniel from the lions, his 
three companions from the fiery furnace, and Peter from Herod and the 
Jewish Sanhedrim. We are not to conclude, however, that ministering 
angels are to preserve the saints from every calamity of life ; for it is 
the will of God that they should sometimes suffer affliction for their 
own good. But we have reason to believe that these guardian spirits 
are continually about our path, encircling us with an invisible wall of 
protection. 

Thirdly, in affording them comfort. Thus they*comforted Jacob at 
the approach of Esau ; Daniel in his peculiar sorrows and dangers ; 
Joseph and Mary in their perplexities ; Christ in his agony in the gar- 
den ; the apostles and their companions after our Lord's resurrection ; 
and St. Paul immediately before his shipwreck. 

Fourthly, in conveying the souls of the saints to the mansions of bliss. 
Having attended them through the journey of life, they will not forsake 
them in their dying hour ; and when, their spirits leave the earthly tene- 
ment they will bear them in triumph to the upper sanctuary. When 
Lazarus died he " was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom." 
Luke xvi, 22. We look upon death as a scene of sorrow and distress. 
But if the spiritual world were not hidden from us, we should behold, 
in the presence of the dying Christian, ministering angels; and we 
should hear them commingling their sweetest songs with the groans of 



256 creation. [Book IL 

the sufferer, and the lamentations of weeping friends, and softly whis- 
pering, " Sister spirit, come away." 

Lastly, the angels will minister for the saints at the second coming of 
Christ. At the great harvest of the world, as our Lord has taught us, 
the angels will be the reapers ; and as they will then pluck up the tares 
and cast them into the fire, so they will gather the wheat into the garner. 
Christ " shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet ; and 
they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end 
of heaven to the other." Matt, xxiv, 31. 

Thus we have given a faint outline of the creation, the nature, the 
moral condition, and the employment of the holy angels as revealed in 
the Scriptures. How noble and exalted a portion are these celestial 
beings of the wonderful works of the great Creator ! How large and 
extended must be their views of the infinite wisdom and goodness of 
God ! How profound must be their adoration ! How glorious is their 
employment ! Day and night they are fulfilling their Maker's will, not 
as a dull task, but as a most delightful service. Lord, help us to do thy 
will on earth as angels do it in heaven ! 

II. Of Unholy or Evil Angels. 

That this class of created spirits were originally both holy and happy, 
may be clearly inferred from the Divine character. He who is perfectly 
holy and good could not have produced unholy and miserable beings. It 
follows, therefore, that they were once holy angels, and in every respect 
similar to those who now stand in the presence of God ; that they are 
distinguished from the latter, not in their origin nor in their natural 
attributes, but in their moral character and condition ; and that their 
present character and condition can only be accounted for on the prin- 
ciple that they are fallen creatures. Let us then direct our attention to 
their fall, their moral condition, their employment, and their destiny. 

1. Their Fall. — That these unholy angels were once holy and happy, 
and fell from that exalted state, is clearly taught in the following 
passages : " Ye are* of your father the devil, and the lusts of your 
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode 
not in the truth." John viii, 44. " God spared not the angels that 
sinned, but cast them down to hell." 2 Pet. ii, 4. " The angels which 
kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath 
reserved in everlasting chains." Jude 6, Thus we learn that the 
devil " abode not in the truth," which implies that he was once in it ; 
and that the sinning angels " kept not their first estate, but left their 
own habitation." 

Of this wonderful event — a revolt in the heavenly world, and among 
the highest order of created intelligences — we have no regular history in 
the Scriptures. Still we are abundantly assured by them that this event 
did actually take place. By various declarations and allusions which 
they contain we are taught that Satan, an angel of pre-eminent distinc- 



Chap. 9, §2.] CREATION IN PARTICULAR: UNHOLY ANGELS. 257 

tion in heaven, rebelled against his Maker ; and that in this deplorable 
enterprise a multitude of the heavenly host united with him, and, with 
the same disposition, violated the law of God, and revolted from his 
government. 

There is a diversity of opinion with respect to the first sin of the 
fallen angels. Some suppose that it consisted in tempting our first 
parents ; but this opinion is refuted by the consideration that they must 
have been sinful themselves before they could be inclined to lead others 
into sin. Some have thought that their sin was envy — envy either of those 
angels who were superior to them in rank and dignity, or of man whom 
God had created in his own image, and invested with dominion over 
this lower world. But the most probable opinion is that it consisted in 
pride and ambition. St. Paul, in speaking of a bishop, says that he 
must not be " a novice, (veofivrog, a new convert^) lest being lifted up with 
pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." 1 Tim. iii, 6. Here 
it is clearly implied that the devil was condemned for pride; and it is 
fairly presumable that the same sin was the source of condemnation to 
his companions. 

How it was that these angels sinned without being tempted, or, if 
self-tempted, how they could have originated the temptation within 
their own nature, which was at first pure, we cannot fully comprehend ; 
but the facts are revealed, and we are compelled to believe them. That 
they were under a law is clear from the fact that they sinned. But if 
they were under a law which it was possible for them to violate, they 
must have been in a state of trial, and of accountability to God ; and, 
to such a state, the possibility of sinning is essential. To say that holy 
creatures could not have sinned without a tempter, is the same as to 
assert the eternity of moral evil, which is absurd ; or, that God is its 
author, which is blasphemous. 

2. Their Moral Condition. — The fall of angels destroyed none of 
their natural attributes. With respect to their essence they are still 
spiritual beings. They are also immortal, highly intelligent, and pos- 
sessed of great power and activity. But their moral qualities have 
undergone a total change. Of their original holiness not a vestige 
remains. Sin is now so natural to them that it seems almost to be 
their essence. It is the element in which they live and move. 

The depravity of men is, in some degree, checked and concealed by 
certain natural feelings and affections, which, though not virtuous, have 
the effects of virtue in restraining them from acts of malice and cruelty, 
and in leading them to perform deeds of justice and beneficence. But 
we have no ground to believe that there is anything analogous to these 
affections and feelings in apostate angels. Sin rages in them unre- 
strained. It is the subject of their thoughts, and gives character to all 
their actions. 

We mav judge how sin produced immediately its full effect upon 

17 



258 CREATION. [Book II. 

fallen angels from the conduct of the tempter. After being expelled 
from heaven, what was his first work ? He visited our earth with the 
most nefarious and vindictive design to mar its beauty, and to poison 
and destroy human nature in its source ; and he accomplished it by a 
train of deliberate falsehood and systematic cruelty. There was no 
relenting at the thought of plunging our whole race into eternal misery. 
His dark mind rejoiced in the expectation that myriads of human 
beings should forever endure the same agonies with himself. " He was 
a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because 
there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his 
own, for he is a liar, and the father of it." John viii, 44. This passage 
illustrates, in a very striking manner, the depravity of fallen angels, for 
what is true of one is true of them all. 

Various names are given to these fallen spirits in the Scriptures, 
which are descriptive of the depravity of their nature. They are called 
<evil spirits, unclean spirits, lying spirits, the rulers of the darkness of 
this world, and spiritual wickedness. Their leader is denominated 
.jSatan, or the destroyer ; the devil, or the accuser ; Apollyon, or the 
^destroyer ; the old serpent ; and " the prince of the power of the air." 

But the fallen angels are as unhappy as they are unholy. This may 
he inferred from the place of their habitation. Peter says, that " God 
spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell" or Tar- 
tarus ; for the apostle uses the verb rapragcjoac, thrusting them down 
to Tartarus. Neither the verb, nor the noun raprapog, from which it is 
formed, occurs in any other place in the New Testament ; but they are 
both frequently employed by Greek writers, from whom we must learn 
their meaning. By Tartarus, they understood the lowest of the infernal 
regions, where the souls of the wicked were supposed to be imprisoned 
and tormented. The word, as adopted by the apostle, conveys the 
same general idea. It answers to the Jewish word tflR ^3, and to the 
Greek yeevva, and is, therefore, properly rendered hell, the place of 
punishment " prepared for the devil and his angels." 

But these unhappy beings are also in a state of penal suffering, for 
God " delivered them into chains of darkness." Having incurred the 
wrath of their Creator, they can experience only evil, and are bound, 
as with a chain of iron, to the darkness and misery of their gloomy 
abode. Their positive misery is very forcibly expressed by our Lord 
when he represents them as " seeking rest, and finding none ;" but still 
more so when he speaks of their proper abode as a place of " everlast- 
ing fire." We are not to conclude, however, that they are constantly 
confined to that place. It appears from their history that they are 
prisoners at large ; and that they are permitted frequently to visit the 
home of man, which seems to be the principal theater of their nefarious 
operations. 

3. Their employment. — It will appear that the employment of fallen 



Chap. 9, § 2.] CREATION IN PARTICULAR : UNHOLY ANGELS. 259 

angels corresponds with the depravity of their nature and the malev- 
olence of their dispositions. It is their constant aim to dishonor God 
and to injure men, and in prosecuting their wicked designs they submit 
to no restraint but Almighty power. We learn from the Scriptures, 

(1.) That they are permitted to exercise power over the bodies of men 
and other material objects. — In proof of this we may appeal to the his- 
tory of Job, which fully sustains and illustrates the proposition. But 
we may appeal to the writings of the Evangelists, also, as furnishing 
numerous instances of demoniacal possessions, and of the power of evil 
spirits over the bodies of men. 

By some it has been alleged that these were not cases of real posses- 
sion ; that the patients labored under common diseases, such as palsy, 
epilepsy, and madness ; and that they were said to be " possessed of 
devils," either in a figurative sense, or in accommodation to the opin- 
ions of the Jews. But when we consider that the number of demons 
in particular possessions is given, that their actions are expressly dis- 
tinguished from those of the persons possessed, that their language in 
regard to their expulsion is recorded, and that accounts are given of 
the manner in which they were actually disposed of, it is impossible to 
deny their reality without admitting that the sacred historians were 
either deceived themselves or intended to deceive others. 

(2.) That they have power to exercise an evil influence over the human 
mind. — This alarming truth is proved, in the first place, by the history 
of the fall ; and in the second place, by many facts and declarations 
and admonitions in the Scriptures. 

It was Satan who tempted Judas to betray his Master,* and who 
put it into the heart of Ananias and Sapphira " to lie to the Holy 
Ghost." f Our Lord told his disciples that Satan had desired to have 
them, that he might sift them as wheat.| He is called " the spirit that 
now worketh in the children of disobedience." Eph. ii, 2. St. Peter 
says, " Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about 
seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter v, 8. And St. Paul says, 
in the name of all his brethren, " We are not ignorant of his devices." 
2 Cor. ii, 11. 

These and many other passages fully prove that evil spirits are 
employed in tempting men to sin. Of the mode of their agency we can 
have no certain knowledge, and to indulge in conjectures would serve 
no valuable purpose. One thing is certain, that they cannot compel 
men to sin, for such a power would be destructive of man's moral 
agency, and would, therefore, defeat their own design, which is to 
involve us in guilt. 

4. Their Destiny. — The degradation and punishment of the fallen 
angels are not yet completed. They are delivered " into chains of dark- 
ness, to be reserved unto judgment" They will then be tried and con- 
* John xiii, 2. \ Acts v, 3. % Luke xxii, 31. 



260 CEEATION. [Book II. 

demned for all the evils which they will have wrought during the his- 
tory of time. These evils, however gratifying to them in the perpetra- 
tion, will, after the judgment of the great day, return upon their own 
heads, and will cover them with eternal shame, and overwhelm them 
with endless ruin. The chains which they now wear will confine them 
unto the judgment, so that they cannot escape ; and will confine them 
forever in the sufferance of that misery to which they have destined 
themselves by a voluntary devotion. For them, therefore, there is no 
redemption, no mercy, no hope. 

The question has been proposed, Why might not provision have been 
made for the recovery of fallen angels as well as for that of man ? but 
to this no decisive answer can be returned. It is enough for us to know 
that God, who always does right, and is too good to be unkind, has 
passed them by. Still, there are some circumstances connected with 
their history, as also with the history of our race, which may reflect 
some light upon this mysterious subject, and which are therefore wor- 
thy of our attention. 1. They were doubtless superior to man in intel- 
lectual endowments, and, therefore, less liable to be deceived. 2. As 
man was partly material, and subject to the influences of the senses, his 
attention might have been diverted and his judgment biased by allure- 
ments addressed to them. But angels were purely spiritual beings, and 
therefore could not have been liable to any such temptations. 3. The 
progenitor of the human race sustained a federal relation to all his pos- 
terity. In him they stood ; in him they fell. But among the angels no 
such relation existed. Each one stood or fell for himself alone. 4. Man 
sinned, in the earthly paradise, through the subtilty of a tempter ; but 
angels sinned, in the heavenly paradise, without a tempter. For, though 
we do not possess a history of their apostasy, yet we know that they 
were not solicited, as man was, by some being of superior artifice, 
because they were the sole inhabitants of heaven. 

Whether these considerations are sufficient to account for the fact 
that angels were not redeemed we will not pretend to say ; but one 
thing appears to be evident, that their apostasy, under all the circum- 
stances of the case, was more unprovoked and atrocious than that of man. 
We conclude, then, that the eternal destruction of fallen angels is no 
more incompatible with the character of God than will be the eternal 
punishment of wicked men. They had their day of trial; but they 
chose the evil, and must eat the fruit of their doings. 



Chap. 10.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 261 



CHAPTEE X. 

OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 

Divine Providence is that care and superintendence which God exer- 
cises over his creatures. As he is the Creator of all things, he possesses 
the power and the right to use them according to his own pleasure ; 
and to cause them, and all which is done by them, to promote his own 
designs. In the discussion of this subject three things demand our 
attention: 1. The proofs of a Divine Providence; 2. Its nature; and, 
3. Its objects. 

I. Proofs of Divine Providence. 

The doctrine of Providence may be established by a variety of argu- 
ments, which may be drawn both from reason and from revelation. We 
begin with the former. 

1. Proof s from Reason. — This class of proofs depends upon the truth 
of the proposition that God created the world. Presuming that this 
position may now be considered as fully established, we derive proofs 
of the Providence of God, 

(l.) From his Nature and Attributes. — That God is both able and 
willing to take care of his creatures is demonstrable from the idea of an 
absolutely perfect being. That he is able to do this appears from his 
omniscience, by which he knows the circumstances and wants of all his 
creatures ; from Jiis wisdom, by which he understands in what manner 
and by what means the world may be sustained and governed ; and from 
his omnipotence, by which he can accomplish all his purposes. That 
he will do this follows alike from his wisdom and goodness. Can it be 
supposed that God, after he had created all things, should abandon his 
own works and be indifferent to the well-being of the countless myriads 
of creatures that he brought into existence, and formed with desires 
and a capacity for happiness ? It is certainly more reasonable to believe 
that he will take care of them, and provide for them according to their 
respective wants. But as God is just and righteous in ail his doings, he 
must exercise a moral government over his rational creatures, and 
reward or punish them according to their actions ; and, in the course of 
his providence, so overrule them as to promote the ultimate end of his 
administration. 

(2.) Prom the dependent nature of creatures. — God alone exists by 
necessity of nature, or, in other words, has the ground of existence in him- 
self. The existence of all other beings is therefore dependent upon the will 
and power of God ; and as they might or might not have been created, so 



262 DIVINE PROVIDENCE. [Book II. 

they may cease to be, there being nothing in the nature of things to 
insure their continuance. Nothing can be more expressive of the 
dependent nature of all created things than the following words of 
Scripture : " In him we live, and move, and have our being." Acts 
xvii, 28. Of the same import is the language of the apostle, when he 
speaks of the Son of God as " upholding all things by the word of his 
power." Heb. i, 3. The assertion of divines, that the preservation of 
existence is a continual creation, is not merely a rhetorical figure, import- 
ing that the power of God is as truly admirable in preserving all things 
as in creating them, but is a literal statement of an important fact. 
For, as all things were created by the power of God, so their preserva- 
tion depends upon a continued exertion of the same power, as the flow- 
ing stream depends upon an uninterrupted supply of water from the 
fountain. 

(3.) From the order and harmony observable in the course of nature. 
— Though the universe is composed of many parts, they are all retained 
in their proper places, and perform their peculiar functions with such 
order and harmony as to promote the general good. In this immense 
and complicated machine no part ever goes wrong. Its motion is never 
suspended or embarrassed, and its operations are carried on with such 
regularity that they are made the subject of definite calculation. The 
heavenly bodies perform their revolutions in their appointed times, 
without ever interfering with one another. The sun, the source of light 
and heat, though he has ministered to the system of which he is the 
center for thousands of years, has lost no portion of his splendor or of 
his influence. The seasons succeed each other in their regular order. 
The earth still retains its native fertility, though many generations have 
been supported by its products. The sea continues wHhin its ancient 
boundaries, and leaves the dry land to be the abode of terrestrial ani- 
mals. The various classes of animals and vegetables have continued to 
propagate themselves, so that the earth is still stocked with inhabitants 
and with a full supply for their wants. When, therefore, we contem- 
plate this immense system of nature, so wonderful in its contrivances, 
so constant in its movements, and proceeding from age to age without 
the slightest confusion, we must necessarily conclude that it is under 
the continual government of an all-controlling Mind. 

It may be objected, that the order which prevails throughout the 
universe may be accounted for by the laws of nature, without an 
immediate interposition of the Deity ; and that it only proves the wis- 
dom of its original constitution. But what is meant by the laws of 
nature f A law, in its primary signification, is a rule established and 
enforced by authority, and obviously implies intelligence and power. 
But when the term is applied to inanimate things, it signifies nothing 
more than the stated and regular order in which they are found to sub- 
sist. Thus, finding that bodies on or near the surface of the earth tend 



Chap. 10.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 263 

toward its center, and that the planets of our system tend toward the 
sun, we call this the law of gravitation ; and in like manner we speak of 
other laws by which matter is governed, as the laws of motion and the 
laws of light. But the truth is that these are only facts, and are called 
laws solely on account of their uniformity. 

From observation and experience we know that bodies gravitate 
toward a center, and that the rays of light are subject to refraction and 
reflection ; but we know not the true cause of these phenomena. Are 
we to suppose that nature possesses intelligence, or activity, or power 
of any kind ? Let us not forget that matter is inert, and totally inca- 
pable of exertion. It can neither put itself in motion, nor stop itself 
when in motion. Every modification which it undergoes is the effect of 
some external power. What, then, are the laws of nature f They are 
the particular modes in which God exerts his power, which, being uni- 
form, are accounted natural, while any deviation from them is pro- 
nounced to be miraculous. It follows, therefore, if this is a just descrip- 
tion of what are called the laws of nature, that so far from their 
accounting for the order which is maintained in the universe, they neces- 
sarily imply the actual and constant interposition of the Creator, and as 
irresistibly suggest the idea of a lawgiver as do the laws of any 
human society. 

(4.) From those moral sentiments and feelings which are common to 
men. — St. Paul tells us, that even the Gentiles who " have not the law, 
are a law unto themselves ;" and that they " show the work of the law 
written in their hearts." Rom. ii, 14, 15. There is a principle in every 
man who has received any degree of cultivation which distinguishes 
between right and wrong, and which lies at the foundation of all our 
moral feelings. ^ This principle, which we call conscience, never fails to 
remind us that we are subjects of moral government, and accountable 
to God for our actions ; and to pronounce a sentence of approbation or 
disapprobation upon our conduct, according as we believe it to be good 
or bad. If there were no Providence, conscience would be an illusive 
faculty ; its decisions would have no better foundation than the hopes 
and terrors of superstition ; but if it is an original principle of our 
nature, as we may infer from its universality, it is God's own testimony 
within us to his moral administration and superintending Providence. 
But we may argue the truth of this doctrine, 

(5.) From its necessity to piety and virtue, and to the happiness of 
human life. — Were it not that God exercises a constant and watchful 
care over his works all piety would immediately cease. A God who 
did not concern himself in the affairs of the world, and especially in the 
actions of men, would be to us the same as no God at all. In that case 
the pious and virtuous could not hope for his approbation, and the 
guilty would have no punishment to fear. The persecuted could think' 
of him only as the idle spectator of their wrongs, and the suffering and 



264 DIVINE PROVIDENCE. [Book II. 

sorrowful could find no consolation. But if, on the other hand, we have 
a right to believe that God, as a Father, cares for us, that he guides and 
protects us, and supplies all our wants, and that " in him we live, and 
move, and have our being," we may then be composed and unshaken 
even in times of the greatest adversity, " casting all our care upon him " 
who cares for us. 

There are several other arguments which might be advanced in proof 
of a Divine Providence, such as the experience of every individual, the 
judgments which are occasionally executed upon notorious transgres- 
sors, the great historic events which have taken place in the world, 
the proportion which exists between the two sexes, and the variety 
in the human countenance, which answers so many valuable pur- 
poses. 

2. Proofs from Scripture. — The Bible establishes the doctrine of 
Divine Providence, 

(1.) By express declarations. — " O, Lord, thou preservest man and 
beast." Psa. xxxvi, 6. "The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou 
givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and 
satisfiest the desire of every living thing." Psa. cxlv, 15, 16. "The 
eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good." 
Prov. xv, 3. In the New Testament we may consult Matt, vi, 25-32 ; 
x, 29-31 ; and Acts xvii, 24-28. These, and many other passages, 
clearly prove the Providence of God. 

(2.) By Prophecies. — This argument is of great weight, and might 
be very extensively applied, but our limits will only permit its mere 
adduction. The rise of mighty kingdoms from small beginnings to 
extensive dominion, and their subsequent fall into decay and dissolution, 
may be accounted for, to some extent, by the operation of second causes ; 
but they are often accompanied by circumstances which manifestly 
point to the hand of Divine Providence. This is particularly the case 
in the revolutions of the great monarchies of ancient times, when viewed 
in connection with the prophecies concerning them ; for who can doubt 
that they were accomplished by Him who foretold them ages before 
they took place ? Who can read the predictions of Scripture respecting 
the captivity and restoration of the Jews, the coming of the Messiah, 
and the spread of the Gospel, and compare them with their actual ful- 
fillment, without being convinced that in all these events God exercised 
a special Providence ? 

(3.) By Miracles.* — As miracles can be performed only by Divine 
power, to admit the truth of the Scripture history respecting them is, in 
effect, to admit that God exercises a particular providence over the 
affairs of men. Even the magicians of Egypt, though employed to 
oppose the servants of the Lord, were forced to exclaim, on witnessing 
one of the miracles of Moses and Aaron, "This is the finger of God !" 
* See Book I, chap. 1, Miracles; also chap. 6. 



Chap. 10.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 265 

The same is true in regard to every miracle which the sacred Scriptures 
record. 

(4.) By extraordinary events in the life of individuals. — This argu- 
ment, if it were followed out to its full length, would involve the entire 
subject of sacred biography ; a subject which fully exhibits the Provi- 
dence of God in its most interesting light. How clearly is this seen in 
the history of Noah, of Abraham, of Lot, of Joseph, of Elijah, of Daniel, 
and a host of others ! Time would fail us " to tell of Gideon, and of 
Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephtha ; of David also, and Samuel, and 
of the prophets." 

II. Nature of Divine Providence. 

The nature of Divine Providence respects the manner in which it is 
concerned in the affairs of the universe. Divines are generally united in 
the opinion that Providence includes two acts, that is, preservation and 
government. 

1. Of Preservation. — By preservation we mean, that efficient agency 
of God by which all creatures, with their respective essences, powers, 
and faculties, are kept in being. No idea can be more false than to sup- 
pose that the creation of beings renders them independent of the Crea- 
tor, for what is derived must always be dependent. Created things, it 
is true, are perfectly distinct from their Creator, as any other work is 
from the workman ; but they are as dependent on him for the continu- 
ance of their being, as vitality in the branch is dependent upon the juice 
which flows from the trunk, or as the growth and life of the human 
body is dependent upon the blood which is propelled from the heart. 
Hence the Scriptures declare, not only that God created all things, but 
that " by him all things consist ;" and that he upholds " all things by 
the word of his power." This absolute dependence upon God for pres- 
ervation is as true of man as it is of the lower orders of creation ; " for 
in him we live, and move, and have our being." 

It has been objected, that the absolute dependence of all things upon 
God implies a reflection upon his wisdom ; as if he had executed a 
work so imperfect as to require his constant interference to prevent it 
from perishing. Men, it is said, construct works which, when finished, 
have no further need of their care. A house will stand though the 
builder should never see it again ; and a watch or a clock will point to 
the hour after it has passed out of the hands of the maker. But it 
should be considered, that in such cases men merely give a particular 
form or arrangement to certain pre-existent materials. They neither 
make them nor uphold them in being, and consequently the durability 
of their works plainly depends upon some other cause than their own 
power. With respect to the operations of any piece of machinery, as a 
watch or clock, let it be further considered that the process does not 
depend upon the mechanic in any other sense than that he made a 
proper disposition of all the parts. The real cause of motion is not in 



266 DIVINE PROVIDENCE. [Book II. 

the machine itself, but in some weight, or spring, or other power, 
which is continually acting upon it, and from which all its motions 
are derived. So likewise the motivity in the immense machine of the 
universe does not belong to itself, but is to be ascribed to God. Hence 
the objection leads us to the very conclusion which it is brought to 
overthrow. 

2. Of Government. — The government of God is that exercise of his 
agency by which he so overrules all creatures and all events, that 
nothing can come to pass but what he either wills or permits.* 

The actions of God himself, and those of his creatures, embrace all 
the phenomena which occur in the universe. Every motion or action 
of any inanimate creature which is not produced by the voluntary effort 
of a moral agent is to be ascribed to God ; but if the motion or action is 
caused by some moral agent, it is to be attributed directly to the agent 
who exerts this influence. If my house is consumed by lightning, it is 
a direct visitation from God ; but if I am prostrated upon the ground by 
the club of a highwayman, God indeed permits it, but it is the robber, 
a moral agent, who is the efficient cause of the crime. 

God is perfectly acquainted with all the efficient causes which exist, 
both those which are free in their agency and those which are other- 
wise. He knows every act of these causes, and all the effects which 
they produce, and he guides and controls them all so as to make them 
subservient to his own designs, and promotive of the highest good of 
the whole. But though he governs all his creatures, he does not govern 
them all after the same manner. With respect to such as are irrational 
he only applies his power ; but he governs his rational creatures partly 
by his power and partly by moral laws — we say partly by his power, 
because as to life and faculties they are as dependent upon God as 
other creatures are. But, to be a little more particular, we may 
observe, 

(1.) That God governs the physical universe according to those gen- 
eral and established laws which are usually called the laws of nature, 
but which are more properly styled mode of Divine agency. He keeps 
the sun in his place as the center, and wheels the planets round him in 
their respective orbits. He fixes the mountains on their bases, and con- 
fines the ocean within its ancient boundaries. Hence, in figurative lan- 
guage, he is said to command the sun to rise, the stars to shine, and 
other natural events to take place. And, as the laws by which he 
governs the material universe are only the regular modes of his agency 

* When we say that God •permits any event, we are not to understand the term to 
indicate that he allows it, or consents to it ; but rather, that lie does not exert his power to 
prevent it. God permits sin, but he does not approve of it ; for, as he is infinitely holy, 
sin must always be the object of his abhorrence. Accordingly, he testifies against the 
very sins into which he permits men to fall, denouncing his threatenings against them, 
and actually punishing them for their crimes. 



Chap. 10.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 267 

in the production of effects, it is evident that he governs it by an imme- 
diate exertion of his power. 

(2.) God governs the lower animals by periodical appetites, by 
instincts, and by some traces of intellect, not amounting, however, to 
responsibility. Impelled by these principles of animated nature, they 
propagate their species, seek the food that is provided for them, and 
perform the various functions for which they are qualified. Thus the 
ant "provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the 
harvest." " The stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times ; 
and the turtle, and the crane, and the swallow observe the time of 
their coming." God sometimes employs irrational animals as instru- 
ments to accomplish his will. Thus, frogs, lice, and flies were his 
instruments in punishing the Egyptians ; and ravens were his ministers 
to carry food to the prophet Elijah. These and other similar facts, 
recorded in the Scriptures, show that all animated creatures are under 
the government of that Being who gave them existence. But, 

(3.) God governs the voluntary actions of men by moral laws. — Of 
the physical, the intellectual, and the moral constitution of men God is 
the efficient cause ; but with respect to their moral actions the case is 
quite different. Of these he could not become the efficient cause with- 
out destroying their very nature; for no action can be moral unless 
it is free. If men were not free to choose and to act they could not be 
accountable for their actions, for in that case their actions would not be 
within their own power. If, then, we would not overturn the first 
principles of morality, if we would not degrade ourselves below the 
standard of moral beings, and if we would not falsify the dictates of 
that moral feeling which God himself has so deeply implanted in our 
hearts, we must firmly maintain the doctrine that man is morally free. 
We are not to expect, therefore, that the government of God over 
moral beings will be shown by his compelling them to perform either 
good or bad actions. 

But while, on the one hand, the freedom of the human will is unim- 
paired by the government of God, on the other the government of God 
is unobstructed and undisturbed by the free actions of men. For, 
though men are free in what they do, their actions are nevertheless 
under his most perfect control. This will appear evident if we consider, 
1. That the moral actions of men depend upon their moral powers, of 
which God alone is both the author and the preserver, and of which 
he can deprive them at any moment; 2. That the external circumstances 
connected with those actions are all under the Divine control ; and, 3. 
That God will reward the obedient and punish the disobedient, in exact 
accordance with their moral character, in the retributions of the eternal 
world. If to these considerations we add that God foresees the free 
actions of his moral creatures, and all the consequences of them, as well 
as those which result from necessary causes, and that the plans and pur- 



268 DIVINE PROVIDENCE. [Book II. 

poses of his providence were formed in full view of all these events, we 
shall find no great difficulty in reconciling the unobstructed operation 
of the Divine government with the free-agency of man. 

We must not, then, lose sight of the fact that the government of God 
over the voluntary actions of men is purely of a moral character. He 
defines their duty by moral laws. He enforces these laws by moral 
motives, such as the authority of the lawgiver, the equity of the laws 
themselves, the advantages of obedience, and the evil consequences of 
sin. He, moreover, lays upon men such external restraints, and affords 
them such internal assistances of grace as are sufficient, if properly 
improved, to withhold them from evil and to lead them to what is right. 
But still it is within their power to yield obedience to the laws of God 
or to transgress them ; and in either case they are the authors of their 
own free actions. 

HI. The Objects of Divine Pkovidence. 

The objects of Divine Providence, so far as we know, consist of 
three classes — inanimate things, creatures endowed with life and 
activity, but possessing no rational or moral powers, and moral beings, 
Providence, in relation to its objects, is divided into general, special, 
and particular. The general providence of God extends to all 
creatures; his special providence has respect to men and human 
affairs ; and his particular providence is restricted to men of virtue 
and piety. 

1. The General Providence of God. — This extends to all created 
things in the universe — to the small and most insignificant, as well as 
to the great and most important. " Though the Lord be high, yet hath 
he respect unto the lowly." Psa. cxxxviii, 6. "O Lord, thou pre- 
servest man and beast." Psa. xxxvi, 6. "Are not two sparrows sold 
for a farthing ? and one of them shall not fall to the ground without 
your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered." 
Matt, x, 29, 30. 

Some talk of a general providence, by which they mean that God 
upholds the general system of nature without attending to matters of 
minor importance. Hence they tell us that he takes care of the species, 
but not of the individuals ; not perceiving that it is hardly possible, in 
so many words, to express a greater absurdity. A species is a general 
name by which the common and distinguishing properties of a number 
of individuals are denoted. The species is nothing but the individuals 
under a particular classification. How, then, can the species be taken 
care of if the individuals are neglected ? If all things, even the smallest, 
were not subject to the providence of God, scarcely anything could be 
said to be governed by him ; for such is the order, connection, and 
dependence of causes and effects that in many cases the least causes pro- 
duce the greatest results. The providence of God, therefore, either 
extends to all things, even to those which we denominate small, or 



Chap. 10.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 269 

there is no providence ; but as the latter is most absurd and impious, 
the former must be admitted. 

Men are accustomed to regard many things as small, insignificant, 
useless, and even injurious, because they are unable to see their use 
and importance in the connection of things. This, however, is only a 
proof of the weakness of the human understanding, and of the great 
imperfection of human knowledge. But as God created all these things, 
and continually prolongs their existence, he must regard them as useful 
and necessary, and as adapted to promote his designs in their connec- 
tion with the whole. How, then, can it be inconsistent with the majesty 
of God to watch over the most minute things in creation and to pre- 
serve them ? If it was not dishonorable for him to give them existence, 
it cannot be dishonorable for him to preserve to them the existence 
which he has given them. And, indeed, his wisdom, power, and good- 
ness are as evident in his least as in his greatest works. 

2. The Special Providence of God. — This, we have said, has respect 
to men and human affairs. Men are the only creatures upon the earth 
who possess a moral nature, or who have reason and freedom of will ; 
and as possessing these, they are capable of a far higher degree of perfec- 
tion and happiness than the lower orders of creation. Hence the care 
of God for them is more apparent, and seems to be more active and effi- 
cient than for his other creatures. Of this special providence, or watchful 
care of God over man, we have abundant proof in the history of our race. 

(1.) It extends to human Life. — This is true in regard both to its 
origin and to its termination. 

First, it extends to the origin of human life ; for though our parents, 
as the instruments of God, are the means by which we come into the 
world, yet God is truly our Creator, and the author of our existence. 
This doctrine is most clearly taught in the sacred Scriptures. Job says, 
in addressing God, " Thine hands have made me, and fashioned me 
together round about. Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and 
hast fenced me with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and 
favor, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit." Job x, 8, 11, 12. 
" My substance," says David, " was not hid from thee, when I was made 
in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine 
eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my 
members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as 
yet there was none of them." Psa. cxxxix, 15, 16. 

Secondly, Providence is concerned in the termination of human life. 
The causes of death are various, as accident, old age, and disease, either 
slow or rapid in its progress ; but all these causes are under the control 
of Divine Providence. And as nothing is more precious than human 
life, it cannot be by chance that men are deprived of it, that their day 
of trial is terminated, and that their spirits are called into the presence 
of God to give an account of the deeds done in the body. If a sparrow 



270 DIVINE PKOVIDENCE. [Book II. 

cannot fall to the ground without the notice of our heavenly 
Father, it would be most unreasonable to suppose that his provi- 
dence should not be concerned in the dissolution of every human 
being. But on this point the Scriptures are clear : " Seeing his days 
are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast 
appointed his bounds that he cannot pass." Job xiv, 5. "Thou turn- 
est man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men." 
Psa. xc, 3. 

It has long been a question of considerable controversy, whether the 
time of every man's death is so fixed and determined that his life can 
neither ' be prolonged nor contracted. Some divines think that the 
affirmative of this question is established by Job xiv, 5, and by some other 
passages ; but others entertain a very different opinion. This much, 
however, we may safely affirm : 1. That God knows, with absolute cer- 
tainty, the time of every man's death ; 2. That with respect to some 
the term of life was immutably fixed, as in the case of Moses and of 
Hezekiah ; and, 3. That in regard to all men the term of life is limited, 
and confined within certain bounds. " The days of our years are three- 
score years and ten ; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore 
years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow ; for it is soon cut off, and 
we fly away." Psa. xc, 10. 

But that God has determined the time of every man's death by an 
immutable decree is not so evident. Against this opinion various pas- 
sages of Scripture may be objected. Take, for instance, the promise 
which is annexed to the fifth commandment, "that thy days may be long 
upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." Exod. xx, 12. 
Likewise Psa. lv, 23 : " Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half 
their days." Another passage is 2 Samuel xxiv, 12-15, where the 
option which was granted to David seems to imply that God had not 
predetermined the time and manner of the death of those seventy thou- 
sand persons who were cut off by pestilence, for if he had there could 
have been no choice in the case. 

It may be objected, also, that this theory leads to the fearful conse- 
quence of making God the author of sin. For, where the end is abso- 
lutely intended, there the means must also be absolutely intended. Con- 
sequently, if God has predetermined the time of every one's death, and 
if in some cases it is effected by intemperance and murder, these means 
must likewise have been predetermined. 

Moreover, where this doctrine is thoroughly believed, and consistently 
carried out into action, it must lead to the neglect of the necessary pre- 
cautions against danger, and of the proper means of recovery from sick- 
ness. For, one who is of this opinion may say, If the fixed time of my 
death has now arrived, these precautions and remedies can be of no 
service to me ; and if it has not yet come, they are wholly unnecessary. 
If any one should reply that the means of preserving and of losing life 



Chap. 10.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 271 

are likewise determined, then nothing more remains but that we should 
wait until God effects within us, and without us, whatever he has 
decreed. 

(2.) It is concerned in the events of human life. — It has been said 
that man is the artificer of his own fortune, and this saying is founded 
upon the influence which his conduct is frequently observed to have 
upon his , temporal condition. But the remark is more worthy of a 
heathen or an atheist than of a believer in, the Bible. We find, indeed, 
that certain actions are commonly followed by certain consequences, 
and it is important that it should be so, because we should otherwise 
have no motive to act in one way rather than in another. This regu- 
larity, however, like the order maintained in the material system, is so 
far from invalidating the argument for the Divine interference in human 
affairs that it confirms it. But in the history of men this order does 
not everywhere prevail. There are frequent deviations from it, which 
compel us to acknowledge the controlling power of God. " The race 
is not " always " to the swift, nor the battle to the strong." In many 
cases industry is frustrated of its reward, and the plans of wisdom 
prove abortive. Worldly wealth is not apportioned according to any 
fixed law. It often falls to the lot of the weak and the worthless, while 
men of superior talents contend for it in vain. The same remarks may 
be applied to earthly honors, and hence, in the language of worldly men, 
temporal blessings are called the gifts of fortune, to intimate that they 
are distributed blindly and without regard to merit. But the true 
doctrine is, that all these things are controlled by the sovereign will of 
God. " Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, 
nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and 
setteth up another." Psa. lxxv, 6, V. 

(3.) It extends to human actions. — The moral actions of men are 
regarded as being either good or bad; but whatever their character 
may be, they are all, in one way or other, under the control of Divine 
Providence. 

First, that God is concerned with the good actions of men will not 
be denied. Their goodness may seem to justify his interference, and the 
assistance which he gives will be deemed worthy of the purity and 
benevolence of his character. It will be readily acknowledged that 
God excites men to good actions, that he presents to them proper 
objects and proper motives, that he imparts to them spiritual strength 
and spiritual comfort, that he encourages them to persevere in well- 
doing, and that he enables them, in many instances at least, to accom- 
plish what they intend. " It is God which worketh in you," says the 
apostle, " both to will and to do of his good pleasure," and on this fact 
he grounds the exhortation, " Work out your own salvation with fear 
and trembling." Phil, ii, 12, 13. But, 

Secondly, the providence of God is to be considered in its relation to 



272 DIVINE providence. [Book IX. 

moral evil. The discussion of this question will be attended with some 
more difficulty ; for as, on the one hand, we must be under the strictest 
guard lest God should be represented as the author of sin, so, on the 
other, we should be cautious, lest it should be totally removed from 
under the control of his providence. In the first place, then, this 
ought to be laid down as a principle of indubitable truth, and as the 
foundation of all religion, that God is not, in any sense whatever, 
the author of sin. He neither wills sin nor commits it, otherwise 
he would be neither holy, just, nor good. "Thou art not a God 
that hath pleasure in wickedness ; neither shall evil dwell with thee." 
Psa. v, 4. " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God : 
for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." 
James i, 13. 

But though God is not the author of sin, yet it is still subject to his 
control and superintending providence. He permits sin ; he limits it ; 
and he overrules it for good. 

First, God permits sin. This is not a moral permission, as if he 
approved of sin, but physical, by which he suffers it to be committed. 
The meaning is that he does not interfere in the exercise of his power, 
as he doubtless might do, to prevent sinful actions. If God should thus 
prevent his moral creatures from sinning he would force their will and 
destroy their agency and accountability. Therefore, for wise and holy 
ends he permits sin. " My people would not hearken to my voice ; and 
Israel would none of me. So I gave them up to their hearts' lust ; and 
they walked in their own counsels." Psa. lxxxi, 11, 12. " Who in times 
past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." Acts xiv, 16. 

Secondly, God limits, or sets bounds to sinful actions. We are not 
to suppose that when he permits men to sin he exempts them entirely 
from his control. Such a supposition would be inconsistent w T ith the 
dependent condition of creatures, and with the character of God as the 
governor of the world. Wicked men, therefore, are at all times under 
the superintendence of Divine Providence, and subject to such restraints 
as God in his wisdom may see proper to impose. He can say to them, 
as he says to the raging waves of the sea, "Hitherto shall ye come, but 
no further." Means are always at the command of Providence to cir- 
cumscribe the wicked actions of sinners. "Surely the wrath of man 
shall praise thee," said the psalmist ; " the remainder of wrath shalt 
thou restrain." Psa. lxxvi, 10. 

Thirdly, God overrules sinful actions so as to bring good out of evil. 
The introduction of sin into the world, though followed by most dread- 
ful consequences, has nevertheless given rise to the brightest manifesta- 
tion of the glory of God ; as also to the highest exercise of his benevo- 
lence in the mediation of Christ and the salvation of the guilty through 
his blood. The sons of Jacob, in selling their brother Joseph into 
Egypt, committed a great sin ; but God overruled it for good both to 



Chap. 10.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 273 

Joseph himself and to all his father's family. " As for you," said he to 
his brethren, " ye thought evil against me ; but God meant it unto good, 
to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Gen. 1, 20. 
But though God can bring good out of evil, it by no means follows that 
men may commit sin that good may come. The natural tendency of 
sin is only to evil ; and under the management of creatures, nothing but 
evil can result from it. The process by which good is deduced from it 
can be carried on only by infinite wisdom and almighty power. 

"We are not yet done, however, with this important and mysterious 
subject. The most difficult part remains — the physical agency of God 
in sinful actions. To understand this matter clearly it will be necessary 
to distinguish between the moral powers with which God has endowed 
man, and the exercise of these powers in voluntary actions. The pow- 
ers of action come from God, but the use and exercise of these powers 
he has left to men. This is involved in the very idea that man is a 
moral being; for, if he were subject to the control of necessity, and not 
suffered to choose and to do what he sees best, according to the laws 
of freedom, he would cease to be a moral agent. God is not, therefore, 
the efficient cause of the free actions of men. He gives them the powers 
of action, and preserves these powers every moment ; but the actions 
themselves are their own. Thus, for instance, when a man opens his 
mouth to lie or to blaspheme, God grants him the power at that very 
moment to open his mouth and to speak ; but the use of the power is 
left to the man himself, and he might open his mouth to speak the truth 
and to glorify God. The action, therefore, whatever it may be, is his 
own, and for it he alone is accountable ; which could not be the case if 
it proceeded from another. 

3. The Particular Providence of God. — This has respect to the vir- 
tuous and pious, or, in other words, to the people of God, and is there- 
fore sometimes called his peculiar or gracious providence. No careful 
reader of the Bible can avoid the conclusion that, though God takes care 
of all his creatures, and especially of men, yet he exercises a more par- 
ticular providence toward those who are employed in his service. We 
do not claim that it is miraculous. It does not suspend the laws of 
nature in favor of its objects, though it occasionally did so in former 
times ; nor does it consist in visible interpositions. The righteous, so 
far as we can see, are placed in the same external circumstances with 
other men. They are rich or poor ; they are sick or in health ; they 
meet with successes and disappointments ; they have their sorrows and 
their comforts ; but in all God's providential dispensations toward them 
there is this peculiarity, that in his wisdom and goodness they are ren- 
dered subservient to their most important interests. " We know that 
all things work together for good to them that love God." 

The providence of God toward his people is a uniform dispensation 
of love. He protects them from a thousand evils into which others are 

18 



274 DIVINE PROVIDENCE. [Book II. 

permitted to fall. " Whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and 
shall be quiet from fear of evil." Prov. i, 33. " He shall deliver thee in 
six troubles; yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee." Job v, 19. 
He supports them in times of trial. " When thou passeth through the 
waters, I will be with thee ; and through the rivers, they shall not over- 
flow thee. When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be 
burnt; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." Isa. xliii, 2. He 
bestows upon them his richest spiritual blessings. " For the Lord God 
is a sun and shield ; the Lord will give grace and glory : no good thing 
will he withhold from them that walk uprightly." Psa. lxxxiv, 11. And 
finally, if he chastises them, it is the correction of a Father. " For 
whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom 
he receiveth." Heb. xii, 6. In a word, the ultimate end of providence 
is the glory of God in the salvation of his people. To this end the evils 
of life, as well as its good things, are mysteriously made to contribute. 
This might be illustrated by an appeal to the Scriptures, which are a 
history of Divine Providence in relation to the world at large, but par- 
ticularly of its procedure toward the Church and its genuine members. 



Chap, l.] man's primitive state. 275 



BOOK III. 

DOCTRINES RESPECTING MAN. 

The scriptural character of God having been adduced from the inspired 
writings, we now proceed, in pursuance of our plan, to consider their 
testimony respecting Man, both in the estate in which he was created, 
and in that lapsed condition into which the first act of disobedience 
plunged the primitive pair and their whole posterity. 



CHAPTER I. 

MAN'S PRIMITIVE STATE. 



In turning our attention to the primitive character and condition of 
maw, we will consider him, not so much in a physical, as in a moral 
light. In order to this we will inquire, in the first place, into the nature 
of that law under which man was originally placed ; and secondly, his 
moral condition and capabilities, as they are exhibited in the history of 
his creation. 

I. The Nature of the Law under which Man was originally 

PLACED. 

Here we may remark, 

1. That besides the natural government which God exercises over all 
the various parts of the great visible creation, there is evidence of an 
administration of another kind. This we call moral government, 
because it has respect to the actions of rational creatures, considered as 
good and evil, which qualities are necessarily determined by the law of 
God. 

2. All the moral and accountable creatures with which the Scriptures 
make us acquainted are angels, devils, and men, and there is reason 
to believe that the law under which all are placed is substantially the 
same, and that it is included in this epitome : " Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all 



276 MAN'S PRIMITIVE STATE. [Book HI. 

thy mind ; and thy neighbor as thyself." Matt, xxii, 37, 39. For, 
though this is addressed to men, yet as it is founded, in both its parts, 
upon the natural relation of every intelligent creature to God and to all 
other intelligent creatures, it may be presumed to be universal. Every 
rational creature owes obedience to God, and a benevolent Creator 
could only seek, in the first instance, the obedience of love. 

From the revealed character of the Creator we must conclude that 
every rational creature was made, not only to show forth his glory, but 
that itself might enjoy happiness. The love of God is that affection 
which unites a created intelligent nature to the Creator, the source of 
all true happiness, and prevents, in all cases, obedience from being felt 
as a burden, or regarded under the cold conviction of mere duty. If, 
therefore, a cheerful obedience from the creature be required, as that 
which would constantly promote the felicity of the agent, this law of 
love is to be considered as the law of all moral beings, whether angels 
or men. Its comprehensiveness is another presumption of its universal- 
ity ; for, unquestionably, it is a maxim of universal import, that " love 
is the fulfilling of the law," since he who loves must choose to obey 
every command issued by the sovereign, or the father beloved, and 
when this love is supreme and uniform the obedience must be absolute 
and unceasing. 

The second commandment is like the first in these respects; it is 
founded on the natural relations which exist among the creatures of 
God, and it comprehends every possible relative duty. Thus by these 
two great first principles of the Divine law, the rational creatures of 
God would be united to him as their common Lord and Father, and to 
each other as fellow-subjects and brethren. Indeed, if rational crea- 
tures are under a law at all, it cannot be conceived that less than this 
could be required by their Creator. They are bound to render all love, 
honor, and obedience to him by a natural and absolute obligation ; and, 
as it has been demonstrated in the experience of man, anything less 
would be not only contrary to the Creator's glory, but fatal to the 
creature's happiness. 

3. From these views it follows, that all particular precepts, whether 
they relate to the duties which we owe to God or to other rational 
creatures, arise out of one or other of these two great commandments, 
and that every particular law supposes the general one. Our Lord has 
told us that " on these two commandments hang all the law and the 
prophets ;" and St. Paul teaches the doctrine, that all relative duties are 
briefly comprehended in this saying, " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
thyself." 

It was not, therefore, when the law of Moses was engraven on tables 
of stone by the finger of God, that law was first introduced into the 
world. Men were accounted righteous or wicked between the giving 
of the law and the flood and before the flood, and were dealt with 



Chap, l.] man's primitive state. 277 

accordingly. Noah was "a righteous man," Abel was "righteous," 
and Cain was "wicked." Now as the moral quality of actions is 
determined by law, and that law the revealed will of God ; and as 
every punitive act on his part, and every bestowment of rewards on 
account of righteousness, supposes a regal administration, men were under 
law up to the time of the fall, which law, in all its particular precepts, 
presupposed the two great commandments. 

That our first parents were under law is evident ; nor are we to con- 
clude that the command which was given them in the form of a prohibi- 
tion was the sole measure of their obedience. It was a particular com- 
mand, which, like those of the Decalogue, and in the writings of the 
prophets, presupposed a general law of which this was but one mani- 
festation. 

Thus are we conducted to a more ancient date of the Divine law than 
the solemnities of Sinai, or even the creation of man. It is a law coeval 
in its declaration with the existence of rational creatures, and in its 
principles with God himself. Under this condition of rational existence 
must Adam and every other moral creature have come into being, a 
condition, of course, to which he could not be a party, and to which he 
had no right to be a party had that been possible. He was made 
under law, as all his descendants are born under law. 

But that we may more exactly understand man's primitive state, con- 
dition, and capabilities, considered morally, and the nature, extent, and 
consequences of his fall, it is necessary to consider, 

II. The History of his Creation. 

The manner in which this event is narrated indicates something pecul- 
iar and eminent in the being to be formed, and gives us an intimation 
of a trinity of persons in the Godhead, all Divine because all equally 
possessed of creative power, and to each of whom man was to sustain 
sacred and intimate relations. "And God said, Let us make man in our 
image, after our likeness." In what, then, did this "image" and " like- 
ness" consist? 

Human nature has two essential constituent parts : the body, 
formed from the earth, and a living soul, breathed into the body by 
an inspiration from God. Did, then, the image or likeness of God in 
which man was created relate to his body ? Certainly not, for " God 
is a Spirit," without bodily shape or parts, and, therefore, the body of 
man could not, as such, be in the Divine image. 

Nor did this image consist, as some have supposed, in his having 
dominion over the other creatures. Limited dominion may, it is true, 
be an image of absolute dominion ; but it is not said that man was in 
the image of God's dominion, but in the image and likeness of God 
himself — of something which constituted his nature. Still further, man 
was evidently made in the image of God in order to his having domin- 
ion, as the Hebrew imports. His dominion, then, was subsequent to 



278 MAN'S PRIMITIVE state. [Book IE. 

his being made in the Divine image, and could not be that image 
itself. 

It is in vain to say that this image consisted in some one essential 
quality of human nature which could not be lost • for we shall find that 
it comprehended more qualities than one, and that while revelation 
places it, in part, in what was essential to human nature, it included 
also what was not essential, and what might be both lost and regained. 
It consisted in what divines have called the natural and the moral 
image of God. 

1. JZis natural image. — The natural image of God in which man 
was created was essential and ineffaceable, and comprised his spiritual- 
it]/, his immortality, and his intellectual powers. It consisted, 

(1.) In spirituality. — When God is called "the Father of spirits," a 
likeness is intimated between man and God in the spirituality of their 
nature. This is also implied in the argument of St. Paul, Acts xvii, 29 : 
"Forasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to 
think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by 
art and man's device." Here the apostle argues the spirituality of God, 
and, consequently, his immateriality, from the spirituality of man; for 
if man possesses a spiritual nature, that nature must be also immaterial. 
The argument of the apostle is this: as man is a spiritual and immaterial 
being, if he is the offspring of God, then God must be a spiritual and 
immaterial being ; consequently, the Godhead cannot be " like unto 
gold, or silver, or stone." 

Nor is it a valid objection to say that immateriality belongs to the 
lower animals as well as to man ; for though we allow them to be actu- 
ated by an immaterial principle, it is obviously of an inferior hind. The 
spirit which is incapable of rational induction, and of moral knowledge, 
must be of an order greatly inferior to the spirits which possess these 
capabilities ; and this is the kind of spirituality which is peculiar to man. 
But this image consisted, 

(2.) In immortality. — This applied originally to man's entire com- 
pound nature ; for even his body would not have died had not sin 
entered into the world. This is the irresistible conclusion from the rea- 
soning of St. Paul, where he shows that " by one man sin entered into 
the world, and death by sinP Rom. v, 12. The same fact is implied in 
the original penalty of the law : " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou 
shalt surely die." In this there was most certainly a promise implied 
that if man would continue in obedience he should live. 

Again, we may clearly infer that immortality was included in the 
image of God in which man was created from Gen. ix, 6 : " Whoso 
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; for in the 
image of God made he man." The criminality of homicide seems 
here to be measured by the value of life to an immortal being, 
whose probationary state is to end in eternal happiness or misery, 



Chap. 1.] man's primitive state. 279 

and whose life, on this very account, is not to lie at the sport of human 
passions. 

Though we allow, as the Scriptures seem clearly to teach, that the 
immortality of man related originally to his entire being, yet, without 
running into the absurdity of what is called the " natural immortality" 
of the human soul, that essence must have been constituted immortal 
in a high and peculiar sense. Hence it has ever retained its immor- 
tality amid the universal death, not only of inferior animals, but of the 
bodies of all human beings. Men may " kill the body, but are not able 
to kill the soul." Matt, x, 28. 

(3.) Man's intellectual powers were also included in this image. — This 
we prove from Col. iii, 10: "And have put on the new man, which is 
renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Here 
is a plain allusion to the image of God in which man was originally 
created. He was made capable of knowledge in regard both to natural 
and moral subjects, and endowed also with liberty of will. 

As to the degree of knowledge which man originally possessed com- 
mentators have widely differed. Some have represented him as having 
been, in this respect, almost in a state of infancy ; while others have 
exalted him to almost, if not altogether, angelic perfection. The truth 
lies between these two extremes. That his knowledge was exceed- 
ingly great, may be inferred from the purity and perfection of his 
nature, and from his capability of holding converse with his Maker. 
But that he was in this respect inferior to angels, is clearly implied in 
that declaration of the psalmist : " Thou hast made him a little lower 
than the angels." Psa. viii, 5. 

2. His moral image. — The natural image of God in which man was 
created was the foundation of that moral image by which also he was 
distinguished. Unless he had been a spiritual being, possessing knowl- 
edge and the power of volition, he would have been wholly incapable of 
moral qualities. That he had such qualities eminently, and that in them 
consisted the image of God, as well as in the natural attributes just 
stated, may be argued, 

(1.) From the express testimony of Scripture. — " Lo, this only have I 
found," said Solomon, " that God made man upright." Eccl. vii, 29. 
There is also an express allusion to the moral image of God in which 
man was at first created in Eph. iv, 24 : " Put on the new man, which 
after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." In this pas- 
sage the apostle represents the change produced in true Christians, by 
the Gospel, as a renewal of the image of God in man ; as a new or 
second creation of that image ; and he explicitly declares that this image 
consists in "righteousness" and in "true holiness." It follows, there- 
fore, that man was created in the moral image of his Maker. But this 
may be argued, *- 

(2.) F)°om that satisfaction with which the Creator viewed the works 



280 man's primitive state. L Book HI. 

of his hands. — "And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, 
it was very good." Gen. i, 31. But, as to man, this goodness must have 
implied moral qualities as well as physical. Without them he would 
have been imperfect as man; and had they existed in him perverted 
and sinful he could not have been pronounced " very good." 

As to the degree of moral perfection in the first man, there are two 
extreme opinions. Some have placed it at an elevation which renders 
it exceedingly difficult to conceive how he should have fallen into sin at 
all, and especially how he should have fallen so soon as seems to be 
represented in the narrative of Moses. On the other hand those who 
either deny, or hold very slightly, the doctrine of our hereditary deprav- 
ity, delight to represent Adam as little, if at all, superior in moral per- 
fection and capability to his descendants. 

We may not be able to ascertain the exact degree of his moral per- 
fection ; but it is evident, from the Scriptures above quoted, that there 
is a certain standard below which it cannot be placed. Generally, he 
was made in the image of God/ which, as we have proved, is to be 
understood morally as well as naturally. We must conclude, therefore, 
that man, in his original state, was sinless, both in act and in principle. 
" God made man upright." 

The Hebrew word ti^, which is here translated upright, signifies 
just, upright, perfect, righteous, and is, therefore, indicative of moral 
rectitude. It expresses the exactness of truth, justice, and obedience ; 
and comprehends both the state of the heart and the habit of the life. 
Such, then, was the state of primitive man. There was no obliquity 
in his moral principles — his mind and affections ; none in his con- 
duct. He was perfectly sincere and exactly just, rendering from the 
heart all that was due both to God and to the creatures. All this is 
fully implied in the language of the apostle, when he places the image 
of God in which the new man is created in "righteousness and true 
holiness." 

It may be proper to observe here, that the " knowledge " in which 
the apostle places the image of God in the renewed man does not 
merely imply the faculty of the understanding, which is a part of the 
natural image of God, but that which might be lost, because it is that 
in which the new man is " renewed.'''' It is, therefore, to be understood 
as designating more particularly the knowledge of God ; that knowl- 
edge of God which is the result of holy communion and fellowship with 
him, that knowledge of God which may be fitly denominated experi- 
mental. 

We see, then, that in the primeval condition and character of man 
the " kindness and love of God " eminently appeared. He was made a 
rational and immortal spirit, with no limits to the constant enlargement 
of his powers. He was made holy and happy, and was admitted to 
intercourse with God. He was not left alone, but had the pleasures of 



Chap. 2.] THE FALL OF MAN. 281 

society. He was placed in a world of grandeur, harmony, beauty, and 
utility, which was canopied with other distant worlds, to exhibit to his 
very senses a manifestation of the extent of space and the vastness of 
the universe, and to call into vigorous and salutary exercise his reason, 
his fancy, and his devotion. He was placed in a paradise where prob- 
ably all that was sublime and gentle in the scenery of the whole earth 
was exhibited in pattern, and all that could delight the innocent sense, 
and excite the curious inquiries of the mind, was spread before him. 
He had labor to employ his attention without producing weariness, and 
time for his highest pursuits in the knowledge of God, his will and his 
works. Such was our world and its rational inhabitants, the first pair ; 
and thus did its creation manifest, not only the power and wisdom of 
the Creator, but also his benevolence. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE FALL OF MAN. 



The Mosaic account of this sorrowful event is given in the third chap- 
ter of Genesis, and is substantially this : that man was placed in the 
garden of Eden to dress and to keep it ; that in this garden two trees 
were especially distinguished, one as "the tree of life," the other as 
" the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ;" that of the fruit of the 
latter Adam was commanded not to eat, and the command was enforced 
by the announcement of the penalty, " In the day thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die ;" that through the temptation of the serpent the 
woman was induced to eat of the forbidden fruit, and through her the 
husband also ; and that for this act of disobedience they were expelled 
from the garden, made subject to death, and laid under other maledic- 
tions. 

Interpreters of this account may be divided into three classes : those 
who deny the literal sense of the relation entirely ; those who take it to 
be in part literal and in part allegorical ; and those who, while they 
contend for the literal interpretation of every part, consider some of 
the terms used and some of the persons introduced as conveying a 
meaning more extensive than the letter, and as constituting several 
symbols of spiritual things and of spiritual beings. 

In directing our attention to the scriptural account of the fall we will 
first prove that it is to be understood in its literal sense ; and in the 
second place we will consider some objections which have been urged 
against the Divine administration, as connected with the circumstances 
of the fall of man. 



282 THE FALL OF MAN". [Book III. 

I. The Mosaic account of the Fall is to be understood in its 
Literal Sense. 

That this account is to be taken as a matter of real history, and 
according to its literal import, may be established by the following con- 
siderations : 

1. That it is a part of a continuous history. — To select from a 
regularly conducted narrative a particular portion, as allegorical, when 
all the other parts in the connection are admitted to be plain history, is 
contrary to all rules of interpretation. If we may make thus free with 
the third chapter of Genesis why not the first, and thus deny the 
reality of the creation? Why not make a similar disposition of the 
Mosaic history from Abel to Noah, or from Noah to Abraham ? One 
of these consequences must therefore follow : either that the account of 
the fall must be taken as a history of facts, or that the historical charac- 
ter of the five books of Moses must be given up. But the literal sense 
of this history is established by the consideration, 

2. That as a simple relation of events it is referred to in various 
parts of the Scriptures. — The prophets frequently speak of " the garden 
of Eden," and of "the garden of God." We have "the tree of life" 
mentioned several times in the book of Proverbs and in the Revelations. 
The enemies of Christ and of his Church are spoken of under the name 
of " the serpent," and the habit of the serpent to " lick the dust " is 
also referred to by Micah. 

If the history of the fall as recorded by Moses were an allegory, or 
anything but a literal history, several of the above allusions would have 
no meaning ; but the matter is put beyond all possible doubt in the New 
Testament, unless the same culpable liberties be taken with the words 
of our Lord and St. Paul as with those of the Jewish lawgiver. Our 
Lord says, Matt, xix, 4, 5 : " Have ye not read, that he which made 
them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this 
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : 
and they twain shall be one flesh ?" Here, although he does not quote 
immediately from the history of the fall, yet he quotes a portion of the 
same continuous narrative ; consequently he must have regarded it as a 
real history. 

St. Paul says, " By one man sin entered into the world ;" " In Adam 
all die ;" and again, " I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled 
Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the 
simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Cor. xi, 3. In this passage the instru- 
ment of the temptation is said to be a serpent., [o</>£c,] which is a sufficient 
answer to those who would make it any other animal ; and Eve is 
represented as being first seduced, according, to the Mosaic account. 
This the apostle repeats in 1 Tim. ii, 13, 14: "Adam was first formed, 
then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived 
was in the transgression." 



Chap. 2.] THE FALL OF MAN. 283 

When we consider that these passages are made the basis of grave 
reasonings in regard to some of the most important doctrines of 
Christianity, and of important social duties and points of Christian 
order and decorum, it would be to charge the sacred writers 
with the grossest absurdity, nay, with even culpable and unworthy 
trifling, to suppose that they would argue from the history of the 
fall as a narrative, when they knew it to be a mere allegory. We 
must allow, therefore, that our Lord and his apostles regarded it 
as a real history. This view of the subject will be strengthened if 
we consider, 

3. The absurdity of supposing the account of the fall to be partly 
allegorical. — ~No writer of true history would mix allegory with plain 
matter of fact in one continued narrative without any intimation of a 
transition from one to the other. If, therefore, any part of this narra- 
tive is matter of fact, no part is allegorical. On the other hand, if any 
part is allegorical, no part is naked matter of fact ; and the consequence 
of this will be, that everything in every part of the whole narrative 
must be allegorical. t Thus the whole history of the creation would be 
an allegory, of which the real subject is not disclosed, and in this 
absurdity the scheme of allegorizing would end. 

4. Though the literal sense of the history is thus established, yet 
that it has in several parts, but in perfect accordance with the literal 
interpretation, a mystical sense, is equally to be proved from the Scrip- 
tures. 

It is a matter of established history that our first parents were pro- 
hibited from the tree of knowledge, and after their fall were excluded 
from the tree of life; that they were tempted by a serpent, and that 
various maledictions were passed upon them and upon the instrument 
of their seduction. But, rightly to understand this history, it is neces- 
sary to recollect that man was in a state of trial ; that the prohibition 
of a certain fruit was but one part of the law under which he was 
placed ; that the serpent was but the instrument of the real tempter, 
and that the curse on this instrument was symbolical of the punishment 
reserved for the real agent. 

(1.) That man was in a state of trial appears on the very face of the 
history; but to a state of trial the power of moral freedom is essential. 
That our first parents possessed this power is as evident as that they 
were placed under rule and restraint. They are contemplated through- 
out the whole transaction, not as mere instruments, but as voluntary 
agents, and as such, capable of reward and punishment. Commands 
were issued to them which supposes a power to obey; but a power to 
obey necessarily implies a power to refuse and rebel. The power to 
obey and disobey being then mutually involved, that which determines 
a moral agent to the one or to the other is the will. For, if it were some 
power ab extra, operating necessarily, he would be no longer an actor 



284 THE FALL OF MAN. [Book IIL 

but a mere passive instrument, and, therefore, in order to man's account- 
ability we must allow his free-agency. 

In that state of excellence in which man was created his will must 
have exerted an absolute sovereignty over his thoughts, desires, words, 
and conduct. This, however, did not exclude solicitation or strong 
influence from without, provided we allow that it was resistible, either 
by man's own strength, or by means of assistance from a higher source. 
But though freedom of will is essential to a rational creature in a state 
of trial, yet the circumstances of the trial may be varied, and made 
more easy or more difficult, according to the will of the Divine 
Governor. 

Our first parents, in their primitive state of trial, were evidently sub- 
ject to temptation from intellectual pride, from sense, and from passion. 
The first two operated on Eve, and, probably, on Adam also ; to which 
was added, in his case, a passionate subjection to the wishes of his wife. 
If, then, these were the facts of their temptation, the circumstances of 
their trial are apparent. Their passions and appetites, so far from being 
in themselves sinful, were doubtless intended, under the control of rea- 
son, to be the instruments of great good ; but it was at the same time 
possible that they should yield to those appetites and passions contrary 
to the dictates of reason, and thus suffer them to become the occasions of 
much mischief. To this cause the commission of the first transgression 
is evidently ascribed. " The woman saw that the tree was good for 
food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to 
make one wise." This view of its qualities, together with the sugges- 
tions of the tempter, induced her to act contrary to the express com- 
mand of God. 

It is therefore manifest, that the state of trial in which our first 
parents were placed required of them, in order to the preservation of 
their virtue, vigilance, prayer, and the active exercise of the dominion 
of the will over solicitation. No creature can be absolutely perfect, 
because every creature is finite ; and it would appear, from the example 
of the first pair, that an innocent rational being, though perfect in its 
hind, is kept from falling only by taking hold on God. As this is an 
act, there must be a determination of the will to it ; and so, when the 
least carelessness, the least tampering with the desire of forbidden grat- 
ifications is induced, there is always an enemy at hand. Thus, " when 
lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin ; and sin, when it is finished, 
bringeth forth death." James i, 15. 

This is the only rational account of the origin of moral evil, and it 
resolves itself into three principles : 1 . The necessary imperfection, in 
degree, of finite creatures. 2. The liberty of choice, which is essential to 
rational, accountable beings. 3. The influence of temptation on the will. 
That Adam might have resisted the temptation is a sufficient proof of 
the justice of God throughout this transaction ; and that the circum- 



Chap. 2.] THE FALL OF MAN. 285 

stances of his trial were made precisely what they were, is to be resolved 
into a icisdom, the full manifestation of which is not to be expected in 
this life. 

(2.) The prohibition of a certain fruit was but one part of the law 
under which man was placed. We have already seen that all rational 
creatures are under a law which requires supreme love to God and 
entire obedience to his commands ; and that, consequently, our first par- 
ents were placed under this equitable obligation. We have also seen 
that all specific laws emanate from this general law, and are manifesta- 
tions of it. The Decalogue was such a manifestation of it to the Jews, 
and the prohibition of the tree of Jcnoicledge is to be considered in the 
same light. This restraint presupposed a right in God to command, and 
an obligation in his creatures to obey. 

But it would be absurd to suppose that this prohibition was the only 
rule under which our first parents were placed ; for then it would follow 
that had they become sensual in the use of any other food than that 
which was forbidden, or had they refused to worship their Creator, it 
would not have been sin. This precept was, however, made prominent 
by special injunction ; and it is enough to say that it was, as the event 
shows, a sufficient test of their obedience. 

(3.) The visible agent in man's seduction was the serpent, but the 
real tempter was that evil spirit called the Devil and Satan. It is evi- 
dent, from the attributes and properties ascribed to the serpent, that 
some superior intelligence was identified with it in the transaction. 
Surely the use of speech, reasoning powers, a knowledge of the divine 
law, and seductive artifice, are not the faculties of an irrational animal. 
The solemn manner, too, in which God addressed the serpent in pro- 
nouncing the curse, proves that an intelligent and free agent was 
arraigned before him ; and it would indeed be ridiculous to suppose the 
contrary. 

This shows that the ridicule of some, as to the serpent, is quite mis- 
placed, and that one of the most serious doctrines is involved in the 
whole account — the liability of man to diabolical influence. Though we 
have but general intimations of the existence of an order of apostate 
spirits, and know nothing of the date of their creation, or of the circum- 
stances of their probation and fall, yet this is clear, that they are per- 
mitted to have influence on earth ; to war against the virtue and the 
peace of man, though under constant control and government ; and that 
this was one circumstance in the trial of our first parents, as it is also in 
ours. Here, then, without giving up the literal sense of the history, 
we must look beyond the letter, and regard the serpent as only the instru- 
ment of a superhuman tempter. 

(4.) In like manner the sentence pronounced upon the serpent, while 
it is to be understood literally as to that animal, must be considered as 
teaching more than is expressed by the letter, and the terms of it are 



286 THE FALL OF man. [Book III. 

therefore to be regarded as symbolical. The cursing of the serpent was 
a symbol of the malediction which fell upon the devil — the real agent in 
the temptation ; while the prediction respecting the bruising of the ser- 
pent's head by the seed of the woman was indicative of man's redemp- 
tion from the malice and power of Satan by our Lord Jesus Christ. 
This symbolical interpretation of the passage is confirmed by two con- 
siderations : 

First, if the serpent was only a mere instrument employed by Satan, 
as was obviously the case, justice required that the curse should fall with 
its greatest weight upon the real seducer. But to interpret the history 
in a merely literal sense would confine the punishment entirely to the 
serpent, and leave the prime mover of the offense without any share of 
the malediction. 

Secondly, it would be ridiculous to suppose, under the circumstances, 
that the prediction respecting the bruising of the serpent's head was 
intended to be understood in no other than a literal sense. We see the 
offenders before God in the utmost distress ; and we hear him pronounc-. 
ing upon them pains, and sorrows, and misery, and death. But are we 
to imagine that we hear him foretelling with great solemnity, in the 
midst of all this scene of calamity and woe, that at some future period 
a serpent should wound the heel of one of Adam's posterity, and that 
he should revenge himself by bruising its head ? What had this trivial 
circumstance to do with man's fallen condition ? What comfort could 
the condemned offenders have derived from such a prediction ? Adam 
surely could not have understood the prophecy in this light, though 
some of his sons have so understood it. 

II. We will consider some objections which have been urged 

AGAINST THE DlVINE ADMINISTRATION AS CONNECTED WITH THE CIRCUM- 
STANCES of the Fall or Man. 

1. It is asked by way of objection, Could not God, who certainly 
foresaw man's apostasy, have prevented so great an evil f And if so, 
how can we reconcile the fall of man with Divine goodness f That 
God foresaw the fall we firmly believe, for he declares " the end from 
the beginning ;" and that he could have prevented it we freely admit, 
for he can do whatever does not imply a contradiction and is consistent 
with his own perfections. 

We do not suppose that God was necessarily compelled to create 
man. The fact that he did not perform this work till a few thousand 
years ago is sufficient evidence that he might, had he seen proper, have 
suspended it even till now. If, then, he was not compelled to create 
man at first, but acted with perfect freedom, it would follow that he 
might still continue to exercise the same freedom and unmake what he 
had made, or so change it as to constitute it something entirely differ- 
ent. So far, then, as the simple question of power is concerned, God 
could have prevented the fall. He could have prevented it by omitting 



Chap. 2.] THE FALL OF MAN. 287 

to create maD. He could have prevented it by making man anything 
else than a moral agent. But that he could have preveDted it consist- 
ent with his own attributes without destroying the moral agency of 
man is what cannot be proved. 

But if the only way by which God could have rendered the apostasy 
of man impossible was, to withhold from him the power of moral 
agency, the question then amounts to this : Was it best, upon the whole, 
that moral agents should be brought into existence? Before the 
Divine administration in this case can be justly impugned, it must be 
shown either that it was improper to create moral agents, or that the 
possibility of transgressing is not essential to the character of a moral 
agent. That it was improper to create moral agents is contradicted by 
the fact that God did create such beings. We are, therefore, compelled 
to allow, that in the judgment of God more good than evil would result 
from their creation, and that it was best, upon the whole, that such 
beings should be created. 

That the possibility of apostasy is essential to the character of a 
moral agent is easily proved. 1. A moral agent is one who is capable 
of performing moral actions. 2. Moral actions imply a law by which 
they are determined to be right or wrong. 3. A law for the govern- 
ment of moral actions must necessarily be such as may be either obeyed 
or disobeyed by the subject, otherwise there could be neither virtue nor 
vice ; there could be no praise attached to obedience, no blame to dis- 
obedience. Thus it is clear that moral agency necessarily implies the 
power to obey or disobey ; consequently, God could not have pre- 
vented the possibility of man's apostasy without destroying his moral 
agency. 

2. The prohibition under which our first parents were placed has 
often been made the subject of ridicule. — " What harm could there be in 
eating an apple," it is asked, "that they should be placed under a 
restraint so strict and unreasonable ?" 

Here it may be observed that the objection does not lie against the 
fact of man's being placed under law ; for the propriety of this is gen- 
erally acknowledged. The ground of complaint is in the peculiar char- 
acter of the law itself; and particularly in its being a positive precept, 
and not a moral one. The difference between positive and moral pre- 
cepts is, that " moral precepts are those the reasons of which we see ; 
positive precepts those the reasons of which we do not see. Moral 
duties arise out of the nature of the case itself prior to external com- 
mand ; positive duties do not arise out of the nature of the case, but 
from external command. Nor would they be duties at all, were it not 
for such command received from Him whose creatures and subjects 
we are."* 

But as the obligation of all duties, whether moral or positive, rests 
* Butler's Analogy. 



288 THE FALL OF MAN. [Book III. 

upon their being made law by the authority of God, no valid objection 
can lie against the making of a positive precept the special test of man's 
obedience. To see or not to see the reasons of the Divine enactments, 
whether moral or positive, is a circumstance which does not affect the 
question of duty. But that God has sufficient reasons for all that he 
requires of us, though we may not see them, is a conclusion as rational 
as it is pious ; and to slight positive precepts, therefore, is to refuse 
obedience to the Lawgiver only on the proud and presumptuous ground 
that he has not made us acquainted with his own reasons for enacting 
them. 

Nor was this positive injunction without some obvious moral reason, 
which is probably the case with all positive precepts of Divine author- 
ity. That all moral creatures should acknowledge subjection to the 
Creator is equally required by the Divine glory, and by the benefit of 
the creatures themselves. Man was required to do this by a free and 
voluntary obedience, in abstaining from the fruit of a single tree, thus 
acknowledging the common Creator to be his Supreme Lord, and him- 
self to be dependent upon his bounty and favor. The prohibition was 
simple and explicit, it was not difficult to observe, it accorded with the 
circumstances of those on whom it was enjoined, and as a test of obedi- 
ence no injunction could have been more suitable. This view of the 
transaction in Paradise gives it an aspect so noble and dignified that 
we may well shudder at the impiety of that poor wit by whom it has 
been sometimes ignorantly assailed. 

3. It has also been objected, that if the serpent was but the mere 
instrument of the real seducer, the sentence pronounced upon it was 
unjust. — To this the reply is, that it could not be a matter of just com- 
plaint to the serpent that its form should be changed, and its species 
lowered in the scale of being. To its former superior rank it had no 
original right, but held it at the pleasure of the Creator. If special 
pain and suffering had been inflicted upon the serpent there would be a 
semblance of plausibility in the objection ; but it suffered no more in 
consequence of the fall than other irrational animals. 

Its degradation was evidently intended as a memento to man ; and 
the real punishment, as we shall show, fell upon the real transgressor, 
who used the serpent as his instrument. But the enmity of the whole 
race of serpents to the human race, their cunning, and their poisonous 
qualities, appear to have been wisely and graciously intended as stand- 
ing warnings to us to beware of that spiritual enemy who ever lies in 
wait to wound and destroy. 

4. The penalty annexed to the Adamic law has been made a ground 
of complaint, as being excessively rigorous and entirely disproportion- 
ate to the offense. — To understand this subject it will be necessary for us 
to take into the account, 

(1.) Mart s primitive condition as a responsible being. — In order that 



Chap. 2.] THE FALL OF MAN. 289 

he might be a proper subject of moral government he was made a 
rational being, capable of understanding his duty and the reasons of it. 
He was made capable of perceiving and feeling the influence of motives, 
and was endowed with every attribute of a free moral agent. His duty 
was plainly prescribed ; while light, like the unobstructed rays of the 
sun, flowed into his soul by a direct communication from God. No 
necessity impelled him to transgress the Divine law, for he was in pos- 
session of every necessary faculty to enable him to obey. Such was his 
primitive condition, and such were the circumstances by which he was 
rendered accountable for his actions. 

(2.) The nature of that authority by which he was bound, and to 
ichich he was held responsible. — It was the supreme authority of the 
infinite God, enforced by the strong obligations of truth, justice, holi- 
ness, and gratitude. Such obligations, as high as heaven and as sacred 
as God himself, could not be relinquished or disregarded. The honor 
of the eternal throne forbade it. 

(3.) The character of man's offense. — Surely, it could not have been 
so trivial a thing as those seem to suppose who speak so flippantly of 
the mere circumstance of tasting an apple. The eating of the forbidden 
fruit was the external act of the transgression ; but the seat of the crime 
lay deep in the soul. There, where all had been holiness and love, 
pride and lust and unbelief were allowed to reign in triumph. The 
word of God was contradicted, his authority was thrown off, man's 
allegiance to heaven was relinquished, and the claims of gratitude were 
entirely disregarded. How exceedingly defective, then, must be the 
views of those who represent the first sin as a venial impropriety, of 
scarcely sufficient magnitude to merit the notice of God ! 

In view of all these circumstances we have no room to complain that 
the penalty of death was annexed to the Divine law. The whole history 
of the case, when properly understood, proves that the penalty, so far 
from being an evidence of cruelty on the part of the Lawgiver, was a 
benevolent enactment. In all good governments the object of penal 
sanctions is not primarily the punishment of the subjects, but the pre- 
vention of crime. So, likewise, that Adam might be deterred from 
transgression, and thereby be preserved in his primitive state of holiness 
and happiness, the penalty was annexed to the Divine precept, " In the 
day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" If the prime object of 
the penalty was the prevention of crime, then the severity of the penalty, 
if such it may be called, is an evidence of Divine goodness, which made 
the inducements to obedience as strong as possible without destroying 
man's accountability. 

19 



290 THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. [Book III. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL 

Having investigated, in the preceding chapter, the circumstances of the 
fall, we turn to the consideration of its effects. On this subject three 
leading opinions are entertained : 

First, the view of Pelagius and of the modern Socinians is, that though 
Adam, by his transgression, exposed himself to the displeasure of his 
Maker, yet neither he nor his posterity sustained any moral injury by 
his disobedience ; that the only evil he suffered was expulsion from Par- 
adise, and subjection to severe labor ; that he was created mortal, and 
would have died had he not sinned ; that his posterity, like himself, are 
placed in a state of trial ; and that we may maintain our innocence amid 
surrounding temptations, and may also daily improve in moral excel- 
lence by the proper use of reason and other natural powers. 

The second opinion is the psuedo-Arminian or semi-Pelagian theory 
of Dr. Whitby and several other divines of the English Church. It is this : 
that though Adam was naturally mortal, yet his life would have been 
forever preserved by the bounty of his Creator had he continued obedi- 
ent ; and that he was a kind of natural representative of his posterity, 
so that all the effects of his fall, to some extent, are visited upon them ; 
not, however, as penal, but as natural consequences, and as children are 
often compelled to suffer by the negligence or fault of their parents. 

The third opinion, and, as we believe, the only rational and scriptural 
view of this subject, is that Adam, by his transgression, incurred the 
Divine displeasure, lost the moral image of God in which he was created, 
and became subject to temporal death, and exposed to death eternal ; 
that as he was the federal head and legal representative of his posterity 
they fell in him as really as he fell in himself, and thus became liable to 
all the penal consequences of his transgression ; that man, in his fallen 
condition, " is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his 
own nature inclined to evil, and that continually ;" and that he has no 
power, without divine grace, to do anything that is really good or 
acceptable to God. 

This is the view which was entertained by Arminius, and which is 
held by that large body of Christians who follow the theological opin- 
ions of Mr. Wesley. Nor is there any material discrepancy between 
this statement of man's fallen condition and the doctrine of the Augs- 
burg Confession, the Church of England, the French Churches, the Cal- 
vinistic Church of Scotland, and, so far as this doctrine alone is con- 
cerned, of Calvin himself. True Arminianism, therefore, as fully as Cal- 



Chap. 3, § 1.] THE PENALTY OF DEATH. 291 

vinism, admits the total depravity of human nature in consequence of 
the fall of our first parents ; and to represent this doctrine as being 
exclusively Calvinistic, which has often been done, it an entire delusion. 
But in order to a further investigation of this subject is will be neces- 
sary to consider, 1. The nature of that death which was made the pen- 
alty of sin ; 2. The legal relation which Adam sustained to his posterity; 
and, 3. The moral condition in which men are actually born into the world. 

§ 1. The Nature of that Death which was made the penalty of Sin. 

That this penalty includes the very " fullness of death," as divines 
have justly termed it, death bodily ', spiritual, and eternal, is a doctrine 
which cannot be puffed away by mere sarcasm, but which stands upon 
the firm basis of inspired truth. A few remarks will show the justness 
of this conclusion. 

1. The Pelagian and Socinian notion that Adam would have died had 
he not sinned, requires no other refutation than the words of St. Paul : 
"By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." Pom. v, 12. 
It evidently follows, therefore, that if sin had not " entered into the 
world," so far at least ~as man is concerned, there would have been no 
death. 

2. In addition to that death which stands opposed to animal life, and 
which consists in the separation of the rational soul from the body, the 
Scriptures speak of death in a moral sense. This consists in a separa- 
tion of the soul from communion with God, and is manifested by the 
dominion of earthly and corrupt dispositions and habits, and an entire 
indifference or aversion to spiritual and heavenly things. All who have 
not been made alive by the power of divine grace are regarded as being 
in this state of spiritual death. "And you hath he quickened, who 
were dead in trespasses and sins." Eph. ii, 1. 

In accordance with this view, that moral change which unites the soul 
to God is represented as a resurrection from the $ead, and a passage 
" from death unto life." To interpret, then, the death pronounced upon 
Adam as including moral death, is in perfect agreement with the lan- 
guage of Scripture. For, if a state of sin in the unregenerate is a state 
of spiritual death, then a state of sin in him was a state of spiritual death ; 
the same cause producing the same effect. And, as God withdraws 
himself from all communion with the guilty, they are thereby separated 
from the only source of spiritual life, and thus suffer a deprivation from 
which a depravation consequently and necessarily follows. 

3. But the highest sense of the term death, in the Scriptures, is the 
punishment of the soul in a future state by a loss of happiness, a sep- 
aration from God, and a positive infliction of Divine wrath. It was in 
this sense that our Lord used th% term when he said, "If a man keep 
my sayings, he shall never see death." John viii, 51. This state of hope- 



292 THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. [Book III. 

less misery is also called "the second death," and is*evidently included 
in the penalty of the Divine law ; for it is to be regarded as an axiom in 
the jurisprudence of heaven, that "the wages of sin is death." Nor do 
the Scriptures give us the least intimation that any sin whatever is 
exempt from this penalty ; or that some sins are punished in this life only, 
and others in the life to come. The degree of punishment will doubt- 
less be proportionate to the offense; but death is the penalty attached 
to all sin, unless it is averted by pardon. What was there, then, in the 
case of Adam to take him out of this rule ? His act was a transgres- 
sion of the law, and therefore sin ; and, as such, its wages was death, 
which means, in its highest sense, future and eternal punishment. 

§ 2. The Legal Relation which Adam sustained to his Posterity. 

The question now to be considered is, whether Adam is to be regarded 
as a mere individual, the consequences of whose conduct terminated in 
himself, or no otherwise affected his posterity than incidentally, as the 
misconduct of an ordinary parent may affect his children ; or whether 
he was the legal head and representative of the human race, who in con- 
sequence of his fall have fallen with him. The latter opinion seems best 
to accord with the teachings of the holy Scriptures, as we will immedi- 
ately proceed to show. 

1. The testimony of the Scriptures in support of this position is so 
explicit that all attempts to evade it have been in vain. St. Paul, in the 
fifth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, evidently contrasts the public 
or federal character of Adam with that of Christ. He shows that the 
evils which mankind suffer are the consequences of Adam's transgres- 
sion, and that the benefits which are graciously bestowed upon them 
are the effects of Christ's obedience. It is with allusion to this repre- 
sentative character that Adam is called " the figure (rvnog, type or 
model) of him that was to come." 

The apostle also adopts the phrases " the first Adam " and " the 
second Adam," which mode of speaking can only be explained on the 
ground that as sin and death descended from one, so righteousness and 
life flow from the other; and that what Christ is to all his spiritual seed 
Adam was to all his natural descendants. On this, indeed, the parallel 
is founded, 1 Cor. xv, 22 : " For as in Adam all die, even -so in Christ 
shall all be made alive ;" words which on any other hypothesis can 
have no natural signification. 

2. The condition in which this federal connection between Adam and 
his posterity placed the latter is next to be considered. This involves 
what theologians call " the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity," 
in regard to which three leading views have been taken. 

(1.) Some hold the doctrine of mei^ate imputation, which is, that 
in virtue of our derivation from Adam, our bodies are mortal and our 



Chap. 3, §2.] FEDEKAL RELATION. 293 

moral nature is corrupt. This opinion, however, though embracing 
truth, does not go to the length of Scripture, which must not be 
warped by the reasonings of erring man. 

(2.) Another view is, that Adam's sin is accounted ours in the sight 
of God by virtue of our federal relation. This is called immediate 
imputation, and is supported by the assumption that Adam and his 
posterity constitute one moral person, and that the whole human race 
was in him, its head consenting to his act. But this opinion is incon- 
sistent with that individual agency which enters into the very notion 
of an accountable being, while it destroys the distinction between origi- 
nal and actual sin. It asserts the imputation of the actual commission 
of Adam's sin to his descendants, which is false in fact ; it makes us 
chargeable with the full latitude of his transgression and all its attend- 
ant circumstances, and it constitutes us separate from all actual volun- 
tary offense, equally guilty with him, all which are equally repugnant 
to our consciousness and to the equity of the case. 

(3.) The other view of this subject, and that which we believe to be 
in accordance with the Scriptures, is, that the imputation of Adam's sin 
to his posterity is confined to its legal eestjlts. If a man has com- 
mitted treason, and has thereby lost his estate, his crime is so imputed 
to his children that they, with him, are made to suffer the penalty of 
his offense. We do not mean, however, that the personal act of the 
father is charged upon the children, but that his guilt or liability to 
punishment is so transferred to them that they suffer the legal conse- 
quences of his crime. 

• Thus the sin of Achan was so imputed to his children that they were 
stoned to death on account of it.* In like manner the covetousness of 
Gehazi was imputed to his posterity, when God declared, by the mouth 
of his prophet, that the leprosy should cleave unto him and his seed 
for ever.f So also the Jews : " His blood be on us and on our children;" 
that is, let us and our children be punished for it. 

In this sense, then, we may safely contend for the imputation of 
Adam's sin to his posterity ; and this agrees precisely with the apostle 
Paul, who speaks of the imputation of sin to those " who had not sinned 
after the similitude of Adam's transgression ;" that is, to all who lived 
between Adam and Moses, and consequently to infants, who personally 
had not offended. He also declares, that " by one man's disobedience 
many were made," constituted, accounted, and dealt with as " sinners," 
and treated as though they themselves had actually sinned. For that 
this is his sense is clear from what follows : " So by the obedience of 
one shall many be made righteous ;" constituted, accounted, and dealt 
with as such, though not actually righteous, but in fact pardoned crimi- 
nals. The legal consequences, then, of this imputation are as previously 
shown, death temporal, spiritual, and eternal. 

* See Josh, vii, 25. f See 2 Kings v, 21. 



294 THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. [Book HI. 

An objection has been raised against this view of the imputation of 
Adam's sin to his posterity on the ground of its supposed injustice. 
Before we give a direct reply to the objection it may be proper to 
remark, that if this imputation is unjust in any of its parts it must be 
unjust in every part. If it is unjust to make the descendants of Adam 
liable to eternal death because of his offense, the infliction of temporal 
death is unjust also ; the duration of the punishment making no differ- 
ence in the simple question of justice. If punishment, whether of loss 
or of pain, is unjust, its measure and duration may be greater or less 
injustice, but it is unjust in every degree. If, then, we confine the legal 
result of Adam's transgression to bodily death, we are in precisely the 
same difficulty, as to the equity of the proceeding, as when it is extended 
further. The only way out of this dilemma is to consider death not as 
a punishment but as a blessing, which involves the absurdity of sup- 
posing that God pronounced a blessing upon Adam as the consequence 
of sin. 

But in meeting this objection it is only necessary to show that it rests 
upon a false foundation. It supposes, contrary to truth, that the legal 
consequences of Adam's transgression are to be considered apart from 
that evangelical provision of mercy which includes the whole human 
race. The redemption of man by Christ was certainly not an after 
thought, brought in upon man's apostasy. It was a provision, and 
when man fell he found justice hand in hand with mercy. If we look 
at the subject in this light every difficulty will be removed. 

As to the case of Adam and his adult descendants, it will be seen 
that all became liable to bodily death. Here was justice. But by means* 
of the atonement, which effectually declares the justice of God, this sen- 
tence is reversed by a glorious resurrection. Again, when God, the 
fountain of spiritual life, withdrew himself from Adam, he died a spirit- 
ual death and became morally corrupt ; and, as " that which is born of 
the flesh is flesh," all his posterity are in the same condition. Here is 
justice. But spiritual life visits man from another quarter and through 
other means. The second Adam " is a quickening Spirit." Through 
the atonement which he has made the Holy Spirit is given to man, that 
he may again infuse into his corrupt nature the heavenly life and regen- 
erate and sanctify it. Here is the mercy. And as to a future state, 
eternal life is promised to all who perseveringly believe in Christ, which 
reverses the sentence of eternal death. Here, again, is the manifesta- 
tion of mercy. 

In all this it is impossible to impeach the equity of the Divine admin- 
istration, since no man suffers any loss or injury ultimately by the sin of 
Adam but by his own willful obstinacy. The "abounding grace" by 
Christ has placed before all men upon their believing, not merely com- 
pensation for the loss and injury sustained by Adam, but infinitely 
higher blessings, both in kind and degree, than were forfeited in him. 



Chap. 3, § 2.] IMPUTATION. 295 

As to adults^ then, the objection taken from Divine justice is unsup- 
ported. 

We come now to the case of infants. The great consideration which 
leads to a solution of this case is found in Romans v, 18 : "Therefore, 
as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, 
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men 
unto justification of life." In these words the sin of Adam and the 
merits of Christ are pronounced to be co-extensive, the words applied 
to both being precisely the same. " Judgment came upon all men," — 
" the/ree gift came upon all men." If the whole human race is meant 
in the former clause, the whole human race is meant in the latter also ; 
and then it follows, that as all are benefited by the obedience of Christ, 
so all children dying in infancy must be partakers of this benefit. 

The " free gift " which " came upon all men" is said to be " unto just- 
ification of life," a full reversal of the penalty of death, and a title to life 
eternal. But the benefit did not so come " upon all men " as to relieve 
them immediately from the penalty of the law ; for they are by nature 
still both morally dead, and liable to the death of the body. This is 
true, not only of adults, but of children also, whether they die in infancy 
or not; for we have no reason to conclude that children dying in infancy 
were born with a purer nature than those who live to maturity. The 
fact of their being" born liable to temporal death, a part of the pen- 
alty, is sufficient to show that they are born under the whole male- 
diction. 

It is, therefore, incorrect to suppose, as some have done, that children 
are born in a justified and regenerate state; but they are all born under 
" the free gift," the effects of which extend to " all men," etc, in order to 
"justification of life." It follows, then, that, in the case of infants, this 
gift may be connected with the end for which it was given, as well as 
in the case of adults, or it would be given in vain. All the mystery of 
the subject arises from this, that in adults we see the "free gift" con- 
nected with the end, actual justification, by a voluntary acceptance of its 
benefits ; but as to infants, the same end is reached without their volun- 
tary consent, and by a process which is entirely hidden from us. If, 
however, an infant is not capable of a voluntary acceptance of the bene- 
fits of the "free gift," neither, on the other hand, is it capable of a 
voluntary rejection of them, and it is by rejecting them that adults 
perish. 

We must not overlook the fact that the benefits of this " free gift " 
are bestowed largely even upon adults, independent of anything they 
do. This is seen in the longsuffering of God, the instructions of his 
word, the corrective dispensations of his providence, and, above all, in 
preventing grace and the influences of the Holy Spirit, exciting in men 
various degrees of religious feeling, and enabling them to repent and 
believe the Gospel. In a word, "justification of life" is offered to 



296 THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. [Book III. 

them ; nay, more, it is pressed upon them, and they fail of it only by 
rejecting it. 

If, then, the very power and inclination to seek "justification of life" 
is thus prevenient, and in the highest sense free, it follows, by the same 
rule of Divine conduct, that the Holy Spirit may be given to children ; 
that a divine and effectual influence may be exerted on them, which, 
meeting with no voluntary resistance, shall cure the spiritual death and 
corrupt tendency of their nature ; and that the principle of adminis- 
tration, in their case, does not greatly differ from that in the case of 
adults. 

When, therefore, the doctrine of imputation is considered in this its 
whole and scriptural view, the objection which is urged against it, on 
the ground of its supposed injustice, entirely vanishes ; and, at the same 
time, the evil of sin is manifested, and also the justice of the Lawgiver. 



§ 3. The Moral Condition in which Men are actually born into the 

World. 

Having established the import of the death threatened as the penalty 
of Adam's transgression, and having shown that the sentence included 
the whole of his posterity, our next step is to ascertain that moral condi- 
tion in which men are actually born into the world notwithstanding the 
gracious provision of redemption. This subject involves the entire ques- 
tion of human depravity, the full discussion of which our limits will 
not allow ; but we will state the doctrine as we believe it to be taught 
in the Scriptures, and adduce the leading proofs by which man's -native 
depravity is established. 

Pelagians, Socinians, and others of kindred sentiments, deny the doc- 
trine of man's native depravity altogether. They hold that the human 
soul, at its entrance upon the stage of life, is as pure as Adam was when 
he came from the hand of his Creator. 

There are others who teach that all men have suffered to some extent 
in their moral powers by Adam's transgression ; but they define this 
result to be, not the total depravity of their moral nature, but merely a 
greater liability to go astray, and to lose that degree of moral purity 
which they by nature possess. 

But as neither of these opinions has any foundation in the sacred 
Scriptures, nor can be established by any rational argument, we will 
direct our attention, 

I. To a statement of what we believe to be the true scriptural doctrine 
respecting the moral condition of man. 

This doctrine is thus expressed in our seventh article of religion : 
" Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians 
do vainly talk,) but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that 
naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very 



Chap. 3, § 3.] DEPRAVITY. 297 

far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to 
evil, and that continually." 

Here we have a clear recognition of human depravity under the 
denomination of original sin — a subject which we will now examine, 
both as to its nature and its degree. 

1. Its nature. — As to the nature of original sin, some divines have 
supposed that it consists in a positive evil, infused into man's nature by a 
judicial act of God, which has been transmitted to all Adam's posterity. 
Others, and those the greater number, both Calvinistic and Arminian, 
have resolved it into privation. Arminius himself calls it " a privation 
of the image of God," and asserts that the " absence alone of original 
righteousness is original sin." But he so explains this privation as to 
include in it both the forfeiture "of the gift of the Holy Spirit" by 
Adam, for himself and his descendants, and the loss of original right- 
eousness as the consequence. He tells us, therefore, that this state of 
destitution renders " all men obnoxious to death temporal and eternal;" 
and that it is "sufficient for the commission and production of every 
actual sin whatever." 

This is by some divines called, with great aptness, " a depravation 
arising from a deprivation," and is certainly much more consonant with 
the Scriptures than the opinion that God infused evil qualities into the 
nature of man. The resulting of moral evil from a mere privation may 
be fitly illustrated by the consequences of temporal death. For, as the 
mere privation of animal life causes the extinction of heat, and sense, 
and motion, and surrenders the body to the operation of chemical 
decomposition; so from the loss of spiritual life followed moral inabil- 
ity, the dominion of irregular appetites and passions, aversion to 
restraint, and estrangement from God, and even enmity against him. 

To perceive this subject in its scriptural light it may be proper to 
remark, 

(l .) That the life ichich the Holy Spirit supplies is the only source of 
righteousness in Man. — This may be inferred from the new creation, 
which is the renewal of man " in righteousness and true holiness," and 
which is the work of the Holy Spirit ; for, before man is thus quickened 
by the Spirit he is " dead in trespasses and sins." But even after this 
change, this being " born again," he is not able to preserve himself in 
the renewed condition into which he is brought but by the continuance 
of the same quickening and aiding influence. 

(2.) That the loss of spiritual life included in it the retraction of 
GocFs Spirit from offending man. — For, if " Christ hath redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, that we might receive the promise of the 
Spirit," as the apostle declares, then it follows that the loss of God's 
Spirit was included in the curse which fell on apostate Adam. 

(3.) That the necessary consequence of this privation was the total 
corruption of Marts moral nature. — If our spiritual life is supplied 



298 THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. [Book III. 

alone by the spirit of God, it is reasonable to conclude that the with- 
drawing of that Spirit from Adam when he willfully sinned, and, con- 
sequently, from all his posterity, was the cause of the death and depra- 
vation which followed. 

2. The degree of human depravity. — In regard to this we may 
safely affirm, as being the doctrine of the Bible, that man is by nature 
totally depraved. Some, it is true, who are generally reputed as ortho- 
dox, have hesitated to adopt the phrase total depravity merely because 
the term is not in the Scriptures. But if it expresses, when properly 
denned, the Scripture doctrine upon this subject, to reject it merely on 
this account is perfectly puerile. 

Others have rejected this phrase because they have attached to it an 
improper meaning. They have represented it as implying depravity in 
the greatest possible degree and in every possible sense. They have, 
therefore, argued that if all men are totally depraved, no one even in 
practice can be worse than another, and no one can ever become worse 
than he is. To these conclusions they have opposed the obvious fact 
that some are more wicked and depraved than others, as likewise the 
testimony of Scripture, that "evil men and seducers wax worse and 
worse ;'" and they have supposed these arguments to be a triumphant 
refutation of the doctrine of total depravity. 

It is worthy of remark, however, that those who have taken this 
view of the subject have represented the doctrine of depravity in a 
very distorted light, and hence their arguments have been directed 
against a mere fiction of their own imagination, leaving the doctrine 
in its true sense undisturbed. No sensible advocate for total depravity 
ever contended that all men are wicked in the same degree, or that 
wicked men may not still become worse ; nor can any such inference be 
fairly drawn from the doctrine when correctly understood. 

Human depravity may be justly denominated total, because, 

(1.) It extends to all the powers and faculties of the soul. — The 
judgment, the memory, the will, the imagination, the affections, 
and all the moral powers of our nature, are depraved and polluted 
by sin. "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint." 
Isa. i, 5. 

(2.) It implies the absence of all positive good,. — "For I know," says 
St. Paul, " that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing." 
Rom. vii, 18. In this sense the doctrine of total depravity is very 
clearly taught in our eighth article of religion : " The condition of man 
after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself 
by his own natural strength and works to faith, and calling upon God, 
wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and accepta- 
ble to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we 
may have a good-will, and working with us when we have that good- 
will." This implies a total loss by the fall of all spiritual good ; a com- 



Chap. 3, § 3.] DEPRAVITY. 299 

plete and total erasure of that moral image of God in which man was 
created. 

(3.) The entire capacity and powers of the soul abstract from grace 
are filled and continually employed with evil. — That this is one sense 
in which the doctrine of total depravity is to be understood may be 
seen by a reference to our seventh article of religion, already quoted : 
" Man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own 
nature inclined to evil, and that continually." This is in exact accord- 
ance with the testimony of Divine truth. " God saw that the wicked- 
ness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the 
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen. vi, 5. 

Having stated the doctrine of man's native depravity as held by the 
great body of orthodox Christians, and having inquired to some extent 
into its nature and degree, we will proceed, 
, IT. To adduce the leading proofs by which it is established. 

The native and total depravity of all mankind may be argued, 

1. From the penalty of the Adamic law, and the relation which 
Adam sustained to his descendants. — That the penalty of the law 
included death temporal, spiritual, and eternal, and that Adam was the 
federal head and representative of his posterity, have been fully estab- 
lished. But if this relationship existed between Adam and his posterity, 
it will necessarily follow that all the penal consequences of his trans- 
gression must legally fall upon all mankind. In him we were seminally 
created, and as all mankind were represented in him, our common 
nature was identified with him in the offense. Had he been annihilated 
the moment he transgressed, the millions of his posterity would have 
perishecl with him, and never could have realized a state of conscious 
existence. As Adam was the natural head of all our race, it is not 
unreasonable, nay, it appears almost necessarily to follow, in view of 
the law under which he was placed, that he should have been consti- 
tuted our federal head also. As such, by his one offense he "brought 
death into the world and all our woe ;" and, therefore, whatever the 
penalty of the law may have been, he incurred it not only for himself, 
but for all his posterity. 

It may here be inquired whether the posterity of Adam stand charge- 
able with his actual transgression. To this our reply is, that as God 
looks upon things as they really are, and as the transgression of Adam 
was not personally committed by his posterity, therefore it cannot be 
imputed to them as their personal act. But as Dr. Watts has remarked, 
" Sin is taken either for an act of disobedience to a law, or for the legal 
result of such an act ; that is, the guilt or liableness to punishment?"* 
Hence it is clear that the full penalty of Adam's sin may be justly 
charged upon his posterity without making his transgression their per- 
sonal act. A nation or a community may be justly chargeable with all 
the consequences of the act of their legal representative, as fully as 



300 THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. [Book HI. 

though they had done the same thing personally ; even so, if Adam 
was the legal head and representative of his posterity, they are justly 
chargeable with all the legal consequences of his offense. The act was 
theirs, not personally, but through their representative, and they, there- 
fore, incurred the guilt and the penalty which legally and necessarily 
resulted from his act of disobedience. 

This we believe to be the scriptural view of the subject, and one 
which necessarily results from the federal relation that Adam sustained 
to all his descendants. If he had not been their federal head, his guilt 
could not have been imputed to them without violating the principles 
of justice ; and if his guilt had not been imputed to them, it would be 
impossible to justify the Divine administration in executing upon 
them the dreadful penalty. But if we admit, as we must, that Adam 
was our federal head and representative, then our guilt and subjection 
to the penalty of death will necessarily follow as legal consequences. 

2. This doctrine is confirmed by experience and observation. — In enter- 
ing upon this feature of the subject it may be proper to state that there 
are several facts of history and experience which must be accounted for 
in any theory that we may adopt respecting man's moral condition. 

(1.) That in all ages great, and even general wickedness has pre- 
vailed among those large masses of men called nations. 

As to the immediate descendants of Adam, a murderer sprung up in 
the first family, and the world became increasingly corrupt, until u God 
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every 
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil, continually ;" 
that " all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth ;" and that it 
"was filled with violence." Gen. vi, 5, 12, 13. Only Noah was found 
righteous before God ; and because of the universal wickedness — a wick- 
edness which spurned all warning and resisted all correction — the flood 
was brought upon the world of the ungodly. 

The same course of increasing wickedness was pursued after the flood; 
and from Abraham to Moses idolatry, injustice, oppression, and gross 
sensuality characterized the people of Canaan, Egypt, and every other 
country mentioned in the Mosaic narrative. 

The obstinate inclination of the Israelites to idolatry through all their 
generations until the Babylonish captivity, their abounding wickedness 
after their return from Babylon, and their general corruption in the 
time of our Lord, are prominently set forth in the sacred writings, and 
in those of Josephus, their own historian. 

In all heathen nations religious error, idolatry, superstition, fraud, 
oppression, and vice of almost every description show the general state 
of society to be exceedingly and even destructively corrupt. And, 
though Mohammedan nations escape the charge of idolatry, yet pride, 
avarice, oppression, injustice, cruelty, sensuality, and gross superstition 
are all prevalent among them. 



Chap. 3, § 3.] DEPRAVITY. 301 

The case of Christian nations, though in them immorality is more 
powerfully checked than in any other, and many bright and influential 
examples of the highest virtue are found among their inhabitants, suffi- 
ciently proves that the majority are corrupt and vicious in their habits. 
It is, therefore, evident that men in all ages and in all places have been 
generally wicked. 

(2.) Another fact to be accounted for is the strength of this tendency to 
general wickedness. This can only be measured by the consideration of 
two circumstances. Thejirst is, the greatness of the crimes to which 
men have abandoned themselves. If the corrupting principle had only 
led to trifling errors and practical infirmities, a softer view of man's 
moral condition might be taken; but in every age, and among all 
nations, men have been guilty of the most atrocious crimes, both against 
God and their fellow-men. 

The second circumstance to be considered is the number and character 
of the checks and restraints against which this tide of wickedness has 
urged on its almost resistless course. It has opposed itself against the 
law of God, which is in some degree found among all men ; against the 
voice of conscience ; against the restraints and penalties of human laws ; 
against the known and acknowledged fact that vice is a never-failing 
source of misery ; against the terrible judgments of God upon wicked 
nations and individuals ; and against the counteracting and reforming 
influences of God's various dispensations of grace and mercy to our 
fallen world. We cannot consider the number and power of these 
checks without acknowledging that the principle in human nature which 
triumphs over them, and gives rise to so much moral evil, is one of great 
strength and fearful tendency. 

(3.) The third fact to be accounted for is, that the seeds of the vices 
which exist in society are discoverable in children in their earliest years. 
We see in them selfishness, pride, envy, deceit, resentment, falsehood, 
and often cruelty ; and to restrain and correct these evils is the princi- 
pal object of moral education. 

(4.) The fourth fact is, that every man is conscious of a natural tend- 
ency to many evils. Some are inclined to pride, ambition, and excessive 
love of honor ; some to anger, revenge, and implacableness ; some to 
cowardice, meanness, and fear ; some to avarice, care, and distrust ; and 
others to sensuality and prodigality. Where is the man who has not 
his peculiar constitutional tendency to some evil in one or other of 
these classes ? But there are also evil tendencies which are common to 
all men. These are, to forget God ; to be indifferent to our obligations 
to him; to love created objects more than the Creator; to desire the 
praise of men more than the Divine approbation ; and to be more influ- 
enced by visible things which surround us than by those which are 
invisible and eternal. 

(5.) The last fact which we shall name in this connection is, that even 



302 THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. [Book III. 

after men have seriously resolved to live "soberly, righteously, and 
godly," they meet with strong and constant resistance at every step 
from evil passions, appetites, and inclinations. This is so clearly a 
matter of universal experience that, in the moral writings of every age 
and country, and in the very phrases and turns of all languages, virtue 
is associated with difficulty, and represented under the notion of a war- 
fare. 

As these five facts of universal history and experience cannot be 
denied, and as it would be most absurd to discuss the moral condition 
of human nature without any reference to them, they must be accounted 
for. The advocates of man's natural innocence have no way of account- 
ing for these moral phenomena but by referring them to bad example 
and a vicious education. 

Let us take the first. To account for general wickedness they refer 
it to bad example. But we remark, 

First, That this does not account for the introduction of moral evil. 
It was not till after the repentance of our first parents, and their restora- 
tion to the Divine favor, that their children were born. From what 
example, then, did Cain learn malice, hatred, and murder? Nor will 
example account for the fact that the children of virtuous parents often 
become immoral. If they were naturally good, the good example 
always present ought to be more influential than bad examples at a dis- 
tance and only occasionally seen. 

Secondly, Example will not account for the general prevalence of vice. 
If man's natural disposition is more in favor of good than evil, then 
there ought to have been more good than evil in the world, which is 
contradicted by fact. But if it is indifferent to good and evil, then the 
quantum of virtue and vice in society ought to have been pretty equally 
divided, which is also contrary to fact ; and on neither supposition can 
the existence of general wickedness be accounted for. 

Thirdly, This very method of explaining the viciousness of society 
admits the superior power of bad example, which is almost giving up 
the matter in dispute; for, why should it be more influential than 
good example, unless there is a proneness in man to be corrupted 
by it? 

Fourthly, Example does not account for that strong bias to evil in 
men which in all ages has borne down the most powerful restraints; 
nor for the early manifestation of wrong principles, tempers, and affec- 
tions in children, since they appear at an age when example can have 
no influence ; nor for the conflict which always attends a virtuous life. 

Let us, then, see whether a bad education, the other cause usually 
alleged to account for these facts, will be more successful. In regard to 
this we may observe, 

First, That this cause will no more account for the introduction into 
the family of Adam of passions so hateful as those of Cain than will 



Chap. 3, § 3.] DEPRAVITY. 303 

example. As there was no example of these evils in the primeval family, 
so certainly there was no education that could incite and encourage 
them. We are also left still without a reason why, in well-ordered and 
religious families, where both education and example are good, so many 
instances of their inefficacy should occur. If bad education corrupts a 
naturally well-disposed mind, then a good education ought still more 
powerfully to affect it and give it a right tendency. 

Secondly, No reason can be assigned why education as well as 
example should become generally bad if men are not predisposed to 
evil. Of education men are usually more careful than of example. The 
lips are often right when the life is wrong ; and many practice evil who 
will not go so far as to teach it. If human nature is born pure, or at 
worst, equally disposed to good and evil, then the existence of a gen- 
erally corrupting system of education in all countries and among all 
people cannot be accounted for. 

Thirdly, It is not the fact that education is directly and universally 
corrupting in its influence. In many cases it is, indeed, defective ; but 
it has only in a few instances been employed to encourage those vices 
into which men have commonly fallen. It is in those very vices, against 
which all education, even the most defective, is designed to guard us, 
that the world has most obviously displayed its depravity. 

Fourthly, If we come to the other facts which must be accounted 
for, education is placed upon the same ground in the argument as 
example. The evil dispositions of children appear before education 
commences, and that opposition to good and proneness to evil of which 
every man is conscious are in direct opposition to those very principles 
with which education has furnished his judgment. 

It is only, then, by the scriptural account of the natural and heredi- 
tary corruption of the human race, commonly called original sin, that 
these facts are fully accounted for, and as the facts themselves cannot 
be denied, they are strongly confirmatory of the doctrine of man's total 
depravity. 

3. This doctrine is fully established by the direct testimony of Scrip- 
ture. — It has already been shown that the full penalty of Adam's offense 
passed upon his posterity, and consequently that part of it which con- 
sists in spiritual death. A full provision has been made, as we have 
seen, to meet this case ; but that does not affect the state in which men 
are born. It is a cure for an actually existing disease, and not a pre- 
ventive. 

If, then, we are all born in a state of spiritual death, that is, without 
that Divine influence upon our faculties which is necessary to give them 
a holy tendency and to maintain them in it, and if that influence is 
restored to man only by a dispensation of grace and favor, it follows 
that by nature he is born with sinful propensities, and is incapable in his 
own strength of anything that is good. 



304 THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. [Book III. 

When it is said (Gen. v, 3) that " Adam begat a son in his own like- 
ness," there seems to be an implied opposition between the likeness of 
God in which Adam was made, and Adam's " own likeness," in which 
his son was begotten. It is not said that he begat a son in the likeness 
of God ; which would have been an appropriate declaration, and one 
apparently called for, if human nature had suffered no injury by the 
fall. 

It is asserted (Gen. viii, 21) that "the imagination of man's heart is 
evil from his youth." Here it is to be observed, 1. That these words 
were spoken when there were no human beings upon the earth but 
righteous Noah and his family. 2. That they were spoken of man as 
man ; that is, of human nature, and, consequently, of Noah himself and 
those saved with him in the ark. 3. That it is affirmed of man, that is, 
of mankind, that the imagination of his heart " is evil from his youth." 
This passage, therefore, affirms the natural and hereditary tendency of 
man to evil. 

The book of Job, which embodies the patriarchal theology, gives 
ample testimony to this, as the faith of those ancient times. Thus, Job 
xi, 12: " Yain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's 
colt." He is " born" literally, " the colt of a wild ass" Again, " Who 
can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ?" Job xiv, 4. The word 
thing is supplied by our translators, but person is evidently understood. 
In Scripture language, cleanness signifies holiness, and uncleanness, sin ; 
and, therefore, the text clearly asserts the natural impossibility of any 
man's being born sinless, because he is the offspring of guilty and defiled 
parents. The same doctrine is taught, only more fully, in Job xv, 14 : 
" What is man, that he should be clean ; and he which is born of a 
woman, that he should be righteous ?" 

Psalm li, 5 : " Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ; and in sin did my 
mother conceive me." What possible sense can be given to this pass- 
age on the hypothesis of man's natural innocence ? Again, Psalm lvii, 3 : 
" The wicked are estranged from the womb ; they go astray as soon as 
they be born, speaking lies." 

Prov. xxii, 15, and xxix, 15 : "Foolishness is bound up in the heart 
of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." "The 
rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself bringeth his 
mother to shame." These passages put together are a plain testimony 
of the inbred corruption of young children. " Foolishness " in the former 
is not barely appetite, or a want of knowledge attainable by instruction, 
as some have said; for neither of these deserves the correction which 
is recommended. But it is an indisposedness to what is good, and a 
strong propensity to evil. 

Jeremiah xvii, 5 : " Cursed be the man that trusteth in man." But 
why this if he were not, by nature, unworthy of trust ? On the scheme 
of man's natural innocence it would surely have been more appropriate 



Chap. 3, § 3.] DEPRAVITY. 305 

to say, Cursed be the man that trusteth indiscriminately in men, some of 
whom may have become corrupt. But here human nature itself, man 
in the abstract, is held up to suspicion and caution. " The heart," pro- 
ceeds the same prophet, verse 9, " is deceitful above all things, and des- 
perately wicked : who can know it ?" which is the reason adduced for the 
preceding caution against trusting in man. 

Mark vii, 21-23 : " Out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, 
adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, 
lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness ; all these evil 
things come from within, and defile the man." But this representation 
would not be true on the scheme of natural innocence ; for it assumes 
that " all these evil things " come from without, and not " from within" 
as their original source. 

John iii, 5, 6 : " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is 
flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our Lord here 
declares the necessity of a spiritual birth, in contradistinction to our nat- 
ural birth, in order to our entrance into the kingdom of God ; and he 
places the necessity of this moral change in the fact that " that which is 
born of the flesh is flesh." The term flesh is often used in the Scriptures 
to denote man's depraved nature. Thus, " In my flesh dwelleth no good 
thing." " They that are in the flesh cannot please God." " If ye live 
after the flesh ye shall die." " The flesh lusteth against the Spirit." 
These passages serve to fix the meaning of the term flesh as it is used by 
our Lord in his conversation with Nicodemus, and to confirm the opin- 
ion of those who understand him to teach that man is by nature corrupt 
and sinful, and, consequently, unfit for the kingdom of heaven unless he 
is " born again /" and that all amendment of his case must result, not 
from himself, but from the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit. 

The universal corruption of mankind is strongly set forth in the third 
chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. His language, as quoted from 
the fourteenth Psalm, is, "They are all gone out of the way, they are 
together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, not 
one." He shows that " both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin," and 
that all men are " guilty before God." He then proposes the means of 
salvation by faith in Christ, on the express ground that "all have sinned 
and come short of the glory of God." Whoever reads the apostle's 
argument, and considers the universality of the terms employed — all, 

EVERY, ALL THE WORLD, BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES must Conclude, in 

all fairness of interpretation, that the whole human race, of every age, is 
intended. 

We have now seen that the doctrine of man's total depravity rests 
upon a solid foundation — that it is clearly implied in the penalty of the 
Adamic law, and the relation which Adam sustained to his posterity ; 
that it is confirmed by experience and observation ; and that it is explic- 

20 



306 • THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. [Book III. 

itly taught in the sacred Scriptures. It would, therefore, be the great- 
est absurdity to call in question the truth of this doctrine, since it is so 
fully established by evidence which cannot be rejected. 

We will close this chapter by considering two objections which have 
been urged against the doctrine of man's native and total depravity. It 
has been objected, 

1. That " as we have our souls immediately from God, if we are born 
sinful he must either create sinful souls, which cannot be supposed with- 
out impiety, or send sinless souls into sinful bodies, to be denied by the 
unhappy union, which is as inconsistent with his goodness as his justice. 
Add to this, that nothing can be more unphilosophical than to suppose 
that a body, a mere lump of organized matter, is able to communicate to 
a pure spirit that moral pollution of which itself is as incapable as the 
murderer's sword is incapable of cruelty." 

To this objection we reply, that however 'weighty it may have been 
regarded by some, it rests entirely upon an assumption which cannot be 
proved ; that is, that we have our souls immediately from God by crea- 
tion. This objection will fall to the ground if we can prove that our 
souls, as well as our bodies, have descended from Adam by traduction. 
And that this is the fact we are led to believe from the following consid- 
erations : 

(1.) It is said that God " rested on the seventh day from all his work" 
of creation. It is, therefore, unscriptural as well as unreasonable to sup- 
pose that he is still engaged in creating souls, as the bodies of mankind 
multiply upon the earth. 

(2.) Eve was originally created in Adam. God breathed no breath 
of life into her, to make her "a living soul," as he did into her husband. 
Therefore, when Adam saw her he said, " She shall be called Woman, 
because she (her whole self, not her body only) was taken out of 
man." If, then, the soul of the first woman sprung from the soul of 
Adam, as her body did from his, what reason is there to believe that the 
souls of their posterity are produced by immediate creation ? 

(3.) It is admitted by all that, under God, we receive life from our 
parents. But if so we must derive from them our soul, which is the 
principle of life ; for " the body without the spirit is dead." 

(4.) Other animals have power to propagate animated beings like 
themselves. Why, then, should man be but half a father-.?' When did 
God restrict him to the propagation of the mere shell of his person — the 
body without the soul ? It surely was not when " he blessed him and 
said, " Be fruitful and multiply." When he spoke thus he must have 
addressed the soul as well as the body ; for the body alone is incapable 
of either understanding or executing a command. It is, therefore, highly 
reasonable to conclude that the vihole man, by virtue of the Divine 
appointment and blessing, can " be fruitful and multiply," and that our 
souls as well as our bodies come into existence by traduction. 



Chap. 3, § 3.] OBJECTIONS. 307 

(5.) Hence Moses informs us that " Adam begat a son in his own 
likeness, after his image." But had he generated a body without a soul 
he would not have begotten " a son in his own likeness," since he was 
not a mere mortal body, but a fallen embodied spirit. 

The usual objection to the doctrine of traduction is, that it tends to 
materialism. But this arises from a mistaken view of that in which the 
procreation of a human being lies. It does not consist in the production 
out of nothing of either of the parts in man's compound nature, but only 
in the uniting of them substantially with one another. As the matter of 
the body is not then first made, so neither is the soul by that act first 
produced. The creation of both belongs to a higher power ; and then 
the question is, whether all souls were created in Adam, and are trans- 
mitted by a law which is peculiar to themselves. Since, therefore, the 
traduction of the human soul is more rational and scriptural than its 
immediate creation, the objection which we have been considering is 
shown to be groundless. But, 

2. It is objected to the doctrine of man's total depravity, that we often 
discover virtuous traits of character in unregenerate men. 

To this our reply is, that all the moral excellence which can be justly 
claimed for unregenerate men may be easily accounted for without 
giving up the doctrine of man's total depravity. In doing this we 
remark, 

(l.) That there is often the appearance of virtue where none really 
exists. It is well known that various vices may, from their very nature, 
to some extent counteract one another, and thus produce a kind of nega- 
tive virtue. The passion of avarice may lead men to the practice of 
industry, and the love of fame may incline them to perform acts of 
ostentatious benevolence ; but in neither case can there be any real vir- 
tue, because the principle of action is not spiritually good. 

(2.) That selfish motives may sometimes lead men to a course of con- 
duct which may seem to be morally good. A mere love of self-interest 
induces many to endeavor to establish a good moral character on 
account of the standing and influence which it will give them in society. 
All this, however, is perfectly consistent with the view which we have 
taken of man's moral corruption. 

(3.) That the character of men often, appears much better than it 
really is, merely because surrounding circumstances have not called into 
action the latent principles of the soul. They may have in them the 
seeds of a thousand evils, but these may lie measurably dormant for the 
want of exciting causes to call them forth. 

(4.) That it does not follow, from the doctrine of man's moral corrup- 
tion, that there should be nothing virtuous and praiseworthy among 
men until they are truly regenerated. It is to be remembered that we 
are not left to ourselves, and to the unrestrained influence of our corrupt 
nature. In consequence of the atonement made by Christ, a day of 



308 MAN'S MOEAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

grace is given to all men, during which the Holy Spirit operates upon 
their hearts in various ways, repressing the risings of their native deprav- 
ity, and moving them to that which is good. In some cases the issue is 
life, in others an aggravated death. But in nearly all this Divine influ- 
ence cannot fail to correct and prevent much evil, and to bring into 
existence some good, though it may be as the morning cloud and the 
early dew, and to produce civil and social virtues. None of these 
effects, however, are to be placed to the account of nature, or used to 
soften our views of its entire alienation from God ; but they are to be 
ascribed to the working of Divine grace, which is ever employed in seek- 
ing and saving the lost, and which alone is the cause of all that is really 
and spiritually good among men. 



CHAPTER IV. 

MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. 



The moral agency of man is a subject of great interest and import- 
ance. Indeed, if men were not free moral agents their actions could 
not be either virtuous or vicious ; they could neither deserve praise nor 
be justly liable to blame. 

Philosophers of every age since the earliest date of metaphysical 
science have examined this subject with a greater or less degree of par- 
ticularity, but it must be acknowledged that much of their labor has 
tended more to darken counsel than to place truth before the mind in a 
clear and intelligible light. Their metaphysical speculations and fine- 
spun theories have so bewildered the public mind that it is exceedingly 
difficult to exhibit the subject in a clear, concise, and satisfactory manner. 
Difficult, however, as the task may be, we will try to present such views 
of man's moral agency as will be found to accord with the word of God 
and with the principles of sound philosophy. Let us then consider, first, 
its nature ; and secondly, the proofs by which it is established. 

I. The Nature of Man's Moral Agency. 

A moral agent is one who is capable of performing such voluntary 
actions as are determined by some rule or law to be good or evil. 
" Moral good and evil," says Locke, " is the conformity or disagreement 
of our voluntary actions to some law whereby good or evil is drawn 
upon us from the will or power of the law-maker." 

In regard to the simple question of man's agency we presume there 
will be no controversy. We do not contend that he is an independent 
agent. In this sense agency belongs to God alone, for he only possesses 



Chap. 4.] MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. 309 

the power of action in an underived and independent sense. All created 
agents derived this power from the Creator, and are dependent on him 
for its continuance ; yet in the exercise of this derived power they are 
capable of acting. Thus they are distinguished from inanimate matter, 
which moves only as it is moved by some external force. 

That man is a moral agent will not be denied by any who believe the 
holy Scriptures. By these inspired records his actions are determined 
to be either right or wrong. He is everywhere regarded as being capable 
of virtue or vice, and susceptible of praise or blame. But in regard 
to that liberty or freedom which man possesses in the performance of 
moral actions, very different views have been entertained. Though these 
views are both numerous and variant, yet upon close examination it will 
be found that they all harmonize with one or the other of two general 
or leading theories — that of necessity, on the one hand, or that of free 
moral agency on the other. We will notice, 

1. The doctrine of necessity. — Those who advocate this theory teach 
that the actions of men are in some way so overruled and directed that 
they cannot be different from what they are. There is, to be sure, a 
wide difference in the manner in which this class of writers express them- 
selves upon this subject. Some do it in the most unequivocal terms, 
openly denying that man has any control whatever over his moral con- 
duct. Others, from the language which they employ, seem to espouse 
the doctrine of moral liberty in its highest sense ; but when their defini- 
tions and teachings are scrutinized they are found to result in the doctrine 
of necessity, or, at least, to be reconciled to it. 

Under the general term of necessity there are three different schemes 
of doctrine included, which we should carefully distinguish. The first 
scheme is called materialistic fatalism; the second, Stoical fatalism ; 
and the third is that which is now commonly distinguished from the two 
former as the theory of moral necessity. 

Materialistic fatalism is based upon the fundamental doctrine that 
there is nothing in the universe besides matter and motion. This scheme, 
of course, denies the spirituality of God and of the human soul, and 
discards all moral distinctions. It is surely not necessary to attempt a 
refutation of so baseless a theory. A mere statement of its doctrines is 
enough to convince every sober mind of its extreme absurdity. 

Stoical fatalism rises above the former in regard to dignity and purity 
of character. Its fundamental doctrine is that all things, both in heaven 
and earth, are bound together by an " implex series and concatenation of 
causes." The advocates of this theory believe in the existence of God, 
but they regard him merely as the greatest and brightest link in the 
adamantine chain of universal necessity. According to this scheme, 
though it includes the notion of moral distinctions, the idea of moral 
liberty is inconceivable and impossible. 

The theory of moral necessity, while it harmonizes with the two 



310 . MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

former schemes in denying moral freedom to man, differs from them in 
maintaining the absolute freedom of God. Its fundamental doctrine is 
that God is the central and all-controlling power of the universe ; that 
from all eternity he decreed whatever should come to pass, including 
even the deliberations and volitions of men ; and that by his own power 
he now executes his decrees. " We do not, with the Stoics," says Cal- 
vin, "imagine a necessity arising from a perpetual concatenation and 
intrinsic series of causes contained in nature; but we make God the 
arbiter and governor of all things, who, in his own wisdom, has, from all 
eternity, decreed what he would do, and now by his own power executes 
what he decreed." * 

The great reformers, Calvin and Luther, while they maintained the 
absolute freedom of God, denied the freedom of the human will. They 
allowed, indeed, that man, in his original state, possessed freedom. " I 
admit," says Luther, " that man's will is free in a certain sense ; not 
because it is now in the same state it was in Paradise, but because it was 
made free originally, and may, through God's grace, become so again."f 
Man " was endowed with free-will," says Calvin, " by which, if he had 
chosen, he might have obtained eternal life." J But it is well known 
that Luther wrote a work on the " Bondage of the Human Will," and 
that Calvin, in his Institutes, has written a chapter to show that " man, 
in his present state, is despoiled of freedom of will, and subjected to a 
miserable slavery." Thus, according to both Luther and Calvin, man 
was by the fall despoiled of freedom of will. 

They admit that man is free from compulsion or restraint, but they 
repudiate the idea of calling this a freedom of the will. " Lombard at 
length pronounces," says Calvin, " that we are not therefore possessed 
of free-will because we have an equal power to do or think either good 
or evil, but only because we are free from constraint. And this liberty is 
not diminished, although we are corrupt, and slaves of sin, and capable 
of doing nothing but sin. Then man," Calvin proceeds, "will be said 
to possess free-will in this sense, not that he has an equal free election 
of good and evil, but because he does evil voluntarily, and not by 
constraint. That, indeed, is true ; but what end could it answer to 
deck out a thing so diminutive with a title so superb ?" § And truly, if 
Lombard meant nothing more by that liberty for which he contended 
than mere freedom from external restraint, Calvin might well contempt- 
uously exclaim, " Egregious liberty." 

It has come to pass, however, since the days of the great reformers, 
that philosophers and theologians have decked out this very kind of lib- 
erty, this diminutive thing, with the superb title of the freedom of the 
will, and have passed it off for the highest and most glorious liberty of 
which the human mind can form any conception. In this category we 

* Institutes. f Scott's Luther and Ref., vol. 1, pp. 10, 71. 

\ Institutes, book 1, chap. 15. § Id., book 2, chap. 2. 



Chap. 4.] MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. 311 

may place Sir John Locke and President Edwards. The definition of 
liberty which is given by Locke, in his " Essays on the Human Under- 
standing," is this : " Liberty is a power to act or not to act, according 
as the mind directs." President Edwards defines liberty to be the 
" power, opportunity, or advantage that one has to do as he pleases." * 
That these two definitions are in perfect harmony will be admitted by 
every one who weighs the terms in which they are stated. They both 
teach the doctrine that human liberty consists in a power to act accord- 
ing to the dictates of the mind. 

We admit that this theory of liberty rests upon high and distinguished 
authority ; but believing it to be at war with the true doctrine of man's 
moral agency, we will not shrink from the task of pointing out some of 
its most obvious errors and defects. And here we may remark, 

(1.) That the definition of liberty in which these philosophers agree is 
no definition of moral liberty — it touches not the real question at issue. 
It evidently confounds moral liberty with the freedom of bodily actions. 
These philosophers seem to take for granted that if a man has power to 
conform his actions to the dictates or directions of his mind he possesses 
moral liberty in its highest sense. But who does not see that if liberty 
consists in the power to act as the mind directs, or in the power to do 
as we please, that it can relate to bodily actions alone, as distinguished 
from those of the mind ? In other words, it is made to consist in the 
unrestrained opportunity of following the directions or volitions of the 
mind, but not in the power of the mind itself to originate its own 
volitions. 

This may be a correct view of civil liberty but not of moral. Civil 
liberty consists in the power or opportunity of doing what we please 
and of going where we please, so as not to infringe upon the rights of 
others. Here the external actions of the agents are mainly considered 
without any reference to the manner in which their volitions originate. 
In this sense the body might be free to follow the determinations of the 
mind, though the mind itself should be fast bound in the chains of abso- 
lute necessity. This kind of liberty, therefore, has nothing to do with 
the freedom of hu?na?i volitions, but is confined entirely to the power or 
opportunity of acting in accordance with them. 

That this is the only kind of freedom contended for by President 
Edwards may be seen from his own language. In explaining what he 
means by the term liberty, he says that it is the " power and opportunity 
for one to do and conduct as he will, or according to his choice ; without 
taking into the meaning of the word anything of the cause of that choice, 
or at all considering how the person came to have such a volition." In 
whatever manner a man may come by his choice, " yet, if he is able, and 
there is nothing in the way to hinder his pursuing and executing his will, 
the man is perfectly free according to the primary and common notion 
* Inquiry, part 1, sec. 5. 



312 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

of freedom."* This, we repeat it, may be natural or civil liberty, but 
it cannot be moral liberty. It is that kind of liberty which may be 
associated with the most absolute fatalism in regard to the volitions of 
the human mind. 

(2.) Another difficulty in this definition of freedom is, that it claims 
for man what no man ever possessed : a " power to do as he pleases, 
or as his mind directs." If this is freedom, then it is to be found 
nowhere but in God ; for no one but an independent and omnipotent 
being can " do as he pleases." Suppose my child falls into the water, 
where he is in danger of being drowned. The feelings of my nature 
strongly impel me to save him. Accordingly, I exert myself with all 
my might to accomplish the desired object, but without being success- 
ful. Have I here the power to do as I please ? Doubtless I have not, 
and consequently, according to the definition of President Edwards, I 
am not at liberty to save my child. I know it may be said that my 
immediate will is not to save my child, but only to exert myself in order 
to save him. Such, however, is evidently not the case. My first and 
governing intention is to save him. This lies at the foundation of all 
my exertions ; for if I did not will to save my child I could not volun- 
tarily exert myself to that end. It follows, then, that no man has the 
power to " do as he pleases ;" and consequently that, in this respect, the 
definition which we are considering implies too much. But, 

(3.) A man may have the power, in certain cases, to " do as he 
pleases," while at the same time he has no liberty to do otherwise. 
Suppose a man to be conducted into a room where he meets a friend 
whom he had long desired to see. Without his knowledge he is locked 
in ; but he is so delighted with his company that he continues in the 
room most willingly, without any desire to leave it. Will any one pre- 
tend to say that his staying with his friend is not voluntary ? We 
think not, and yet he has no liberty to do otherwise. We see, there- 
fore, that a man may do as he pleases in some cases when he has no 
liberty to act in any other way. Consequently in such cases he cannot 
be free, unless we confound all language, and say that liberty and neces- 
sity are the same thing. 

From what we have seen, it is very evident that there is no real 
difference between the views of President Edwards in regard to human 
liberty and those of Luther and Calvin. They all agree that in order to 
man's accountability he must be free from compulsion. Thus, suppose 
a man wills to perform an external action, but is prevented by some 
outward restraint ; or suppose he is constrained to do an action against 
his will, he is said to be under compulsion, co-action, or natural neces- 
sity, and cannot, therefore, in either case be held accountable. The 
reformers held this freedom from co-action or compulsion to be consist- 
ent with necessity, so far as our volitions are concerned, and accord- 
* Inquiry, part 1, sec. 5. 



Chap. 4.] MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. 313 

ingly they denied the freedom of the human will. President Edwards 
takes up this same doctrine of freedom from co-action, and expands it 
into his far-famed theory of the free-agency and accountability of man, 
a theory which is perfectly consistent with the most absolute necessity 
in regard to the will itself. 

That we do not misrepresent his views in this matter his own lan- 
guage will show. He tells us that " the plain and obvious meaning of 
the words freedom and liberty, in common speech, is power, opportunity, 
or advantage, that any one has to do as he pleases. Or, in other words, 
his being free from hinderance or impediment in the way of doing or con- 
ducting in any respect as he wills. And the contrary to liberty, what- 
ever name we call that by, is a person's being hindered or unable to con- 
duct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise." Again, " there 
are two things that are contrary to this which is called liberty in com- 
mon speech. One is constraint / the same is otherwise called force, 
compulsion, and co-action, which is a person's being necessitated to do 
a thing contrary to his will. The other is restraint ; which is his being 
hindered, and not having power to do according to his will."* 

These quotations show that the liberty for which Edwards contends is 
merely a freedom from co-action and not from necessity. It has no 
relation to the question as to how a man comes by his volitions ; whether 
they are put forth by the mind itself without being necessitated, or 
whether they are necessarily produced by some other cause. " Let the 
person come by his volition or choice how he will," says Edwards ; 
let it happen without a cause, let it be determined by an antecedent 
volition, let it be produced by a direct exertion of Almighty power; 
" yet if he is able, and there is nothing in the way to hinder his pursu- 
ing and executing his will, the man is fully and perfectly free, according 
to the primary and common notion of freedom. "f We see, therefore, 
that this scheme of moral agency claims for man only that freedom from 
compulsion or restraint which allows him to act according to his own 
volitions ; and that, so far as these volitions themselves are concerned, 
it is perfectly reconcilable with the most absolute scheme of necessity or 
fatalism that the world has ever seen. 

Accordingly, it is assumed by Edwards that our volitions are the 
passive and necessary effects of motives. He tells us that " every act 
of the will whatever is excited by some motive ;" that " if every act of 
the will is excited by a motive, then that motive is the cause of the act 
of the will ;" and that " volition is necessary, and is not from any self- 
determining power in the will."J Thus the human mind is reduced to 
the condition of a mere machine, capable only of acting as it is acted 
upon by some external force ; and if this is the real state of the case, as 
the advocates of philosophical necessity must allow, then we have no 
more to do with our volitions than with the circulation of our blood. 
* Inquiry, part 1, sec. 5. f Ibid. % Id., part 2, sec. 10. 



314 MAN'S MOEAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

But as this theory is too absurd to be adopted by any one who believes 
in moral distinctions, we will direct our attention, 

2. To what we conceive to be the true doctrine of free moral agency. — 
A free agent is one who is capable of acting without being necessitated 
to do so by some cause extrinsic to himself. 

That such an agent may exist cannot be denied without denying to 
God the original power to produce creation. It is admitted that he only 
existed from eternity. And, as creation was produced by the act of God 
when nothing had previously existed but himself, it necessarily follows 
that he could not have been impelled to the work of creation by any 
extrinsic cause. To suppose that God cannot put forth an act without 
being impelled thereto by a power back of his own, is to suppose a 
power greater than his, on which the exercise of his omnipotence 
depends. By a parity of reason we should be compelled to suppose 
another power still back of that, and so on, ad infinitum, which would 
be both absurd and impious. Hence we are forced to the conclusion 
that God is a free agent in the fullest sense of our definition, being self- 
active, and wholly independent of all extrinsic influences whatever. 

Now, it is not difficult to conceive that God should create moral 
agents, bearing his image in this, namely, the possession of a self active 
power — agents who are capable of acting without being necessitated to 
act, by some efficient cause beyond themselves. Nor is it more difficult 
to conceive that man possesses self-active power than it is to conceive 
that such a power belongs to God ; for though, in the former case, this 
power is limited and dependent, and in the latter infinite and independ- 
ent, yet in both, so far as the simple question of free-agency is concerned, 
it is the same. We must admit the possibility that man should be 
endowed with self-active power, for to deny this is to deny the omnipo- 
tence of God. It follows, therefore, that the great question in regard 
to free-agency is, whether man, in the exercise of that power with which 
God has endowed him, is capable of acting, without being efficiently 
caused to do so by anything extrinsic to himself. If he possesses this 
self-active power he is a free agent, and is properly the author of his own 
actions ; but if not, he is no more the real author of what he does than 
a passive machine. 

When we claim for man a self-active power in the exercise of volition, 
we do not mean that the will is altogether uninfluenced by motives and 
external circumstances. The mind is the efficient agent that wills ; but 
the act itself is performed according to the laws which properly belong 
to a self-moving and accountable being. Though motives and external 
circumstances can exercise no efficient agency in reference to the will, yet, 
speaking figuratively, they may be properly said to influence the mind, 
and to be conditions or occasions of the mind's action in willing. In this 
sense they may be said to influence the will ; but they cannot exercise 
over it an absolute and irresistible controlling influence. In no case 



Chap. 4.] MAN'S MOKAL AGENCY. 315 

can they efficiently cause an act of volition without destroying its 
freedom. 

Necessitarians seem to have taken for granted, in their arguments 
upon this subject, that there is no medium between absolute necessity 
and perfect independency; but the true doctrine of man's free moral 
agency is at an equal distance from both these extremes. We deny, on 
the one hand, that the volitions of men are so determined by things 
external to themselves as to be fast bound in the chain of absolute 
necessity ; and on the other, that they are so perfectly disconnected 
with surrounding circumstances and things external as to be entirely 
uninfluenced by them. The point in controversy, therefore, between 
the advocates of necessity and the defenders of free agency is, not 
whether man is influenced, in the exercise of volition, by motives and 
external circumstances, for this is admitted by all ; but whether his will 
is thus necessarily and absolutely controlled, so that his volitions could 
not be different from what they are. 

It is a fact of great importance in the investigation of this subject 
that there are three leading attributes or faculties of the human mind 
which are clearly distinguishable from each other, namely, the intelli- 
gence, the sensibility, and the will. In other words, the human mind is 
capable of thought, of feeling, and of volition. ISTow it will be found, 
on examination, that the phenomena which pertain to these several 
departments of capability possess different characteristics, accord- 
ing to the attribute or faculty to which they belong. Of these dif- 
ferences we must form clear conceptions, if we would avoid that 
obscurity and confusion in which the philosophy of the will is mostly 
involved. 

Let us suppose, for the sake of illustration, that I fix my attention 
upon an apple. I conclude, in my own mind, that it is round and red. 
This decision or judgment of the mind is a state of the intelligence — a 
state which does not depend on any effort of my own ; for I could not 
possibly come to any other conclusion respecting the form and color of 
the apple if I would. Hence this decision, this judgment, this state of 
the intelligence, is necessitated ; and so also is every other perception or 
state of the intelligence. But while I continue to look upon the apple, 
I experience a strong desire to eat it. This desire or appetite is a state 
of the sensibility y and in this case, as well as in all our feelings, the mind 
is as clearly passive as in the former. It follows, therefore, that every 
state of the intelligence and of the sensibility is a necessary result of its 
proximate cause, and for this reason it cannot be free. 

Again, though I have experienced the judgment that the apple is 
round and red, and have felt the desire to eat it, yet, hitherto, I have 
put forth no voluntary effort, except in fixing my attention upon it. 
But now I determine to eat the apple, and accordingly this determina- 
tion is carried into effect. Here, then, is an entirely new phenomenon. 



316 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

It is an effort, an act, a volition of the mind ; and my consciousness 
assures me that in this I am free. 

If these remarks are just, it will at once be seen how important it is 
that we should distinguish the will from both the intelligence and the sen- 
sibility, in order that we may perceive its true nature, and wherein its 
liberty consists. Necessitarians have generally confounded these distinct 
faculties of the human mind; and as their theory is based upon this false 
psychology, it is not strange that they should deny the proper freedom of 
the will. " By whatever name we call the act of the will," says Edwards, 
" choosing, refusing, approving, disapproving, liking, disliking, embrac- 
ing, rejecting, determining, directing, commanding, forbidding, inclining 
or being averse, being pleased or displeased with — all may be reduced 
to this of choosing."* Thus it is manifest, according to the psychology of 
this author, that the phenomena of the intelligence, the sensibility, and 
the will are identified, as are also these faculties themselves. With him 
approving, liking, being pleased or displeased with, and willing, are all 
the same. His psychology admits of no distinction between the impres- 
sion which is made on a man's intelligence or sensibility by the presence 
of an apple, and that act of the will by which he puts forth his hand to 
eat it. " I humbly conceive," says Edwards, " that the affections of the 
soul are not properly distinguished from the will, as though there were 
two faculties."! And again, " all acts of the will are truly acts of the 
affections." J Thus this great metaphysician, by confounding things 
which are perfectly distinct in their nature, has been led to the adoption 
of views respecting the human will which are contrary to truth, involved 
in obscurity, and self-contradictory. 

We readily admit that in the perception of truth the intelligence is 
perfectly passive. The mind can no more avoid the conclusion that two 
and two are equal to four, than it can determine that white is black, or 
that light is darkness. We admit also that every state of the sensibility 
is a passive impression — a necessitated phenomenon of the human mind. 
No matter what fact or truth may be presented to the mind either by its 
own voluntary attention or by any other agency, the impression which 
it makes upon the sensibility is beyond the control of the will, except by 
refusing to give it the attention of the mind. But in the act of willing 
the case is very different. Here the mind is perfectly free, because it 
possesses a power of acting over which there is no controlling power 
either within or without itself. This is what we understand by the free 
moral agency of man. Let us consider, 

II. The Proofs by which Man's Free Moral Agency is estab- 
lished. 

In defending the proposition that man is a free moral agent, we may 
reply, 

1. Upon our own consciousness. — By this we mean that knowledge 
* Edwards's Works, vol. 2, p. 16. \ Ibid., vol. 4, p. 82. % Ibid. 



Chap. 4.] MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. 317 

which we have of what passes in our own minds. Thus, when we are 
joyful or sad, when we love or hate, when we hope or fear, we are 
immediately conscious of the fact. This kind of knowledge is not 
derived from an investigation of testimony, nor does it result from a 
course of reasoning, but rises spontaneously in the mind. In regard to 
things of which we are conscious arguments are superfluous. They can 
neither strengthen our convictions, nor cause us to doubt. We cannot 
persuade a man whose heart is elated with joy that he is at the same 
time oppressed with grief; nor can we convince any one who is writhing 
under the influence of a painful disease that he is in the enjoyment of 
perfect health. The reason is that consciousness carries with it its own 
demonstration, and from it there is no appeal. 

What, then, is the testimony of consciousness in regard to the free- 
dom of the human will ? It is evidently this, at least, that the mind is 
not controlled in its volitions by any extrinsic cause. Who can con- 
vince me that I have not the power to write, or to refrain from writing ; to 
sit still, or to rise up and walk ? And this consciousness of a self-determ- 
ining power of the mind is universal. A false philosophy may occa- 
sionally confuse the understanding in regard to this subject, but still the 
conviction comes home to every man with resistless force, that he has 
within himself the power of volition, and that he exercises this power 
freely. 

That we are free to choose either good or evil, and not impelled in our 
moral actions by any law of absolute necessity, is a position which 
accords with every man's consciousness, a position which we can no 
more rationally doubt than we can doubt our own existence. Hence it 
is that all men have a sense of blame when they do wrong, and of 
approbation when they do right. If you convince a man who is charged 
with the commission of a crime that the act was unavoidable, he can no 
more blame himself for having committed it than he can blame the tree 
which fell upon his neighbor and killed him. Remorse for past offenses 
depends, for its very existence, upon a conviction that we are morally 
free. We conclude, therefore, that our consciousness demonstrates the 
freedom of the human will. To set aside its testimony would be as 
unphilosophical as to conclude that it is midnight when we behold the 
full blaze of the meridian sun. But we argue this doctrine, 

2. From the general history of the icorld. — If we turn our attention 
to any period of the world's history, we will find among all nations, in 
their language and common modes of speech, terms and phrases which 
clearly indicate their general belief in the freedom of the human will. 
Terms expressive of blame and of praise are everywhere employed, 
clearly recognizing the principle that men have power to control their 
own actions, and that when they do wrong they are blamed because 
they might and should do otherwise. No one is ever seriously blamed 
for doing an act which is believed to be unavoidable. The very 



318 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

idea of blame, therefore, implies the principle for which we are con- 
tending. 

Again, the laws of all civilized nations punish criminals upon the sup-' 
position that they have power to control their own moral conduct. 
Suppose a man to be accused of homicide. If it could be made appear 
that in the act in question he was not a voluntary agent, but was con- 
strained by an external force which he had not the power to resist, 
there is not a government upon the earth that would find him guilty, 
and for this simple reason, that in the event he was merely a passive 
instrument. 

We know that rewards and punishments are connected with the 
statutory provisions of all civilized governments, and that they are con- 
stantly held out before the community. But why should these sanc- 
tions of law be thus exhibited if men are not free moral agents ? Can 
these motives induce men voluntarily to conform their actions to law, if 
they really possess no such voluntary power ? But perhaps it may be 
said that these motives are designed to determine the will itself, inde- 
pendent of any active agency in the man. This, however, cannot be 
granted ; for if motives are to determine the will, why is the man 
required to attend to the motives, to weigh them carefully, and to make 
a correct decision in reference to their real weight ? We see, therefore, 
that all men in all ages of the world, and in all places, have regarded 
themselves as free moral agents. 

If man has not the power to control his own actions, why is he cen- 
sured for any crime that he may commit ? " Why, we might ask, are 
jails and penitentiaries and various modes of punishment, more or less 
severe, everywhere prevalent in civilized lands ? If the advocates of 
necessity really believe in the truth of their system let them be consist- 
ent, and go throughout the civilized world and plead for the destruction 
of all terms of language expressive of blame or praise ; let them decry 
the unjustifiable prejudice of nations, by which benevolence and virtue 
have been applauded, and selfishness and vice contemned. Let them 
proclaim it abroad that the robber and the murderer are as innocent as 
the infant or the saint, since all men only act as they are necessarily 
acted upon ; and let them teach all nations to abolish at once and forever 
every description of punishment for crime or misdemeanor. Such would 
be the consistent course for sincere necessitarians."* Again, we argue 
the free moral agency of man, 

3. From the Divine administration toward him, as exhibited in the 
Holy Scriptures. — Here we shall see that revelation beautifully harmon- 
izes with nature ; and that the evidences of our free-agency which are 
derived from experience and observation are abundantly confirmed by 
the book of God. In presenting the argument, which is drawn from the 
Divine administration, we may remark, 

* Ralston's Elements, p. 248. 



Chap. 4.] MAN'S MOKAL AGENCY. 319 

(1.) That God has placed man under moral government. Immediately 
after his creation a moral law was given him to keep, and a severe 
penalty was annexed to its transgression. If man had not been created 
a free agent, to have given him a moral law for the government of his 
actions would have been inconsistent with the Divine wisdom ; for a 
moral law commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong, can 
only be adapted to beings capable of doing both right and wrong. 
Hence we argue, that as God placed man under a moral law he must 
have been a free moral agent, capable alike of obedience and of diso- 
bedience. 

To this conclusion we are also conducted by the history of the fall. 
To suppose that all the volitions and actions of men are absolutely determ- 
ined by causes over which they have no control, is to suppose that the 
sin of Adam was absolutely necessary. But to suppose that the penalty 
of the law was inflicted upon the first transgressor for an act which he 
could not possibly avoid, is to suppose the Divine administration to be 
unjust and cruel. Can any rational man believe that God would 
place Adam in such circumstances as would render his act of disobedience 
absolutely necessary, and then say to him, "In the day thou eatest 
thereof thou shalt surely die ?" Most certainly not. The whole history 
of the fall, if viewed in the light of reason, of common-sense, and of what 
we know of the character and government of God, proclaims, in language 
clear and forcible, that man is a free moral agent. 

Though man is now in a fallen condition, and robbed of his primitive 
glory, yet he is still under moral government. God has given him a law 
for the rule of his life. He enforces this law by promises and threaten- 
ings, thus proving most clearly that man is in a state of probation. But 
this implies that he is a free moral agent — that he is capable of conform- 
ing his actions to the rule of life under which God has placed him. For, 
if the volitions and actions of men are necessitated by some power over 
which they have no control, to suppose them to be in a state of proba- 
tion is most absurd. We might as well ascribe a probationary state to 
the beasts of the field, or the fowls of the air. If, then, we are in a state 
of trial we are free moral agents. 

(2.) The freedom of the human will is everywhere acknowledged in 
the Scriptures. " I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, 
that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing : therefore 
choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." Deut. xxx, 19. 
" Choose you this day whom you will serve." Josh, xxiv, 15. To choose 
is to determine or to will; and men are here exhorted to choose for 
themselves. But if the will is not free — if every volition of the human 
mind is necessarily determined by a necessary cause, such exhortations 
are nothing better than solemn mockery. 

Our Lord said to the Jews, " How often would I have gathered thy 
children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, 






320 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

and ye would not!" Matt, xviii, 37. And again, "Ye will not come 
to me, that ye might have life." John v, 40. These, and numerous 
other passages of a similar import, refer expressly to the will of men as 
being under their own control. And on no other principle could the 
Saviour of the world upbraid men in terms of the deepest solemnity, and 
denounce against them the severest punishment for the obstinacy of 
their will. According to the notion of President Edwards and other 
necessitarians all our volitions are necessarily fixed by antecedent 
causes ; but if so, they are no more under our control than the motions 
of the heavenly bodies. It does not require the eye of a philosopher, 
however, to see the antagonism between this theory and the teachings 
of the Holy Scriptures, and it cannot be difficult to determine which 
we should adopt. But we may remark, 

(3.) That God holds men to an account for their moral conduct. It is 
the doctrine of the Bible that " every one of us shall give account of 
himself to God ;" that "we must all appear before the judgment-seat of 
Christ ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, accord- 
ing to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." These and many 
other Scriptures clearly set forth the doctrine of a general judgment and 
of future rewards and punishments. But if man were not free in his 
volitions and moral actions, how could we reconcile the retributions of the 
great day with the attributes of God ? As well might we suppose that an 
all-wise and merciful Being would reward men for breathing the sur- 
rounding atmosphere, or punish them for permitting the blood to cir- 
culate in their veins. As well might we suppose that he would punish 
or reward the fish for swimming in the ocean, or the birds for flying in 
the air ! 

President Edwards and others have attempted to reconcile the doc- 
trine of necessity with the proper freedom and accountability of man. 
They have contended that though the will is necessarily determined, yet 
man is properly a free moral agent merely because he has a will, acts 
voluntarily, and is free from constraint. But to say that he enjoys free- 
dom merely because he is at liberty to obey his will, is as absurd as to 
contend that the man who is subject to the edicts of a cruel tyrant enjoys 
freedom in a civil sense merely because he is at liberty to obey the laws 
under which he is placed. Will any man contend that civil liberty con- 
sists in the privilege of obeying law ? Surely not ; for this would be 
to assume that a man may enjoy civil liberty and at the same time be a 
slave. No one will deny that even slaves have liberty to obey the law 
under which they are placed : but can they be persuaded that for this 
reason they are properly free ? We know they cannot. And yet this 
is the very kind of freedom that President Edwards ascribes to man in a 
moral sense. The will, according to his theory, is unalterably fixed ; 
but as man has the liberty to do as he wills, he is therefore a free moral 
agent, and accountable to God for his moral actions. 

We deny, however, that this kind of liberty can render its possessor 



Chap. 4.] MAN'S MOKAL AGENCY. 321 

an accountable moral agent. " Indeed, there is no difference between 
the liberty attributed to man by the learned President of Princeton Col- 
lege, and that possessed by a block of marble as it falls to the earth 
when let loose from the top of a tower. We may call the man free, 
because he may act according to his will or inclination while that will 
is determined by necessity ; but has not the marble precisely the same 
freedom ? It has perfect liberty to fall ; it is not constrained by natural 
force to move in any other direction. If it falls necessarily, even so, on 
the principle of Edwards, man acts necessarily. If it be said that the 
marble cannot avoid falling as it does, even so man cannot avoid acting 
according to his will, just as he does. If it be said that he has no dis- 
position, and makes no effort to act contrary to his will, even so the 
marble has no inclination to fall in any other direction than it does. 
The marble moves freely, because it has no inclination to move other- 
wise ; but it moves necessarily, because irresistibly compelled by the 
law of gravitation. Just so man acts freely, because he acts accord- 
ing to his will; but he acts necessarily, because he can no more 
change his will than he can make a world. And thus it is plain, that, 
although necessitarians may say they believe in free -agency and 
man's accountability, it is a freedom just such as pertains to lifeless 
matter. 

" If, according to Edwards, man is free, and justly accountable for his 
actions, merely because he acts according to his own will when he has 
no control over that will, upon the same principle the maniac would be 
a free, accountable agent. If, in a paroxysm of madness, he murders 
his father, he acts according to his will. It is a voluntary act, and 
necessitarians cannot excuse him because his will was not under his con- 
trol ; for, in the view of their system, it was as much so as the will of any 
man in any case possibly can be. The truth is, it is an abuse of lan- 
guage to call that freedom which binds fast in the chains of necessity. 
Acting voluntarily amounts to no liberty at all, if I cannot possibly 
act otherwise than I do. The question is, not whether I have a will, 
or whether I may act according to my will, but what determines the 
will? This is the point to be settled in the question of free-agency. 
It is admitted that the will controls the actions ; but who controls 
the will ? As the will controls the actions, it necessarily follows that 
whatever controls the will must be accountable for the actions. Who- 
ever controls the will must be the proper author of all that necessarily 
results from it, and consequently should be held accountable for the 
same." * 

From the whole of this reasoning we feel ourselves safe in the conclu- 
sion that the theory of moral necessity cannot be reconciled with man's 
accountability and the retributions of the judgment day. Men may talk 
as they please about moral agency and the freedom of the human will ; 

* Ralstoifs Elements, pp. 25 2 T 253. 
21 



322 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

but unless man possesses a self-controlling power over his own moral 
actions, he can no more be justly rewardable or punishable than the 
beasts that roam in the forest. This controlling power can only be 
exerted in acts of volition, and hence we contend that the will of man 
is free. 



CHAPTER V. 

MAN'S MOKAL AGENCY I OBJECTIONS. 

Against the doctrine of the free moral agency of man, as presented and 
defended in the preceding chapter, several objections have been urged. 
We are told that this doctrine is absurd in itself, that it is conflictive 
with the established doctrine of motives, and that it is irreconcilable 
with the foreknowledge of God. To each of these grave objections we 
propose to give our candid attention and to return a suitable reply. 
I. It is alleged that our doctrine op free-agency is absurd 

IN ITSELF. 

President Edwards has argued at great length to prove the absurdity 
of the doctrine, that the human mind in the exercise of volition is self- 
active. He alleges that it involves the absurdity either of an infinite 
series of volitions, or of an effect without a cause. Let us then for a 
moment examine this supposed dilemma. And, 

1 . It is here assumed that, according to our theory of the freedom of 
the human will, every act of volition implies a preceding volition by 
which it is determined. If this were really our doctrine of free-agency ; 
if it implied, as Edwards supposes it does, that " each active volition is 
necessarily preceded by another," it would, indeed, involve the notion 
of an infinite series of volitions, the absurdity of which is so obvious 
that arguments to prove it are altogether unnecessary. But though this 
has often been asserted of the Arminian system of moral agency, it has 
never yet been proved and never can be. Our doctrine is, not that one 
volition determines another, but that the mind itself, as a living, active, 
and intelligent agent, puts forth its own volitions. When we speak of 
free-vrill we do not mean that the will is a distinct agent of which freedom 
is an attribute, but that it is an act of the mind, and that the mind, in 
the act of willing, is free from the control of any efficient cause extrinsic 
to itself. In other words, the mind is the active intelligent agent, to 
whom both freedom and volition belong. 

Is it then true that, according to the Arminian doctrine of the self- 
determining power of the mind, every act of volition must be preceded 
and determined by another act of volition ? We think not. We cannot 



Chap. 5.] OBJECTIONS. 323 

see why there may not be an act of willing performed by the mind itself 
without any previous act of volition to determine it. To say that there 
can be no such free act of the mind ; that man, in the possession of those 
powers with which God has endowed him, and independent of any pre- 
determining cause operating upon him, cannot exercise free volition, is 
the same as to say that he is a slave to the most absolute fatalism. 

But this is not all. To say that the doctrine of a self-active power in 
the exercise of willing is absurd in itself, is as much as to say that there 
is not a free agent in the universe, for this would lead to the fearful con- 
clusion that even God himself has not the power of free volition, but is 
moved alone by the impulse of fatality. As it is absurd to suppose that 
every volition of the human mind is determined by a previous volition, 
so such a supposition must be equally absurd when applied to God. It 
must, therefore, be admitted, either that the will of God is efficiently 
determined by external causes, or that in the exercise of volition he pos- 
sesses a self-determining power. To suppose that his volitions are effi- 
ciently determined by external causes, is in effect to suppose that he cannot 
be the Creator of all things. For, before he exerted creative power he 
must have willed to do so ; but as nothing then existed external to him- 
self, that volition could not have been produced by any external cause. 
It follows, therefore, that it must have originated in his own self-active 
nature. 

If, then, the Divine mind can will freely without being impelled to do 
so, either by a previous act of volition or by any extrinsic cause, to sup- 
pose that the human mind possesses a similar power cannot be absurd in 
itself. And if God possesses in himself the power of free volition, the 
only question is, whether he can confer this exalted ability on created 
beings. To deny that he possesses this power himself is to deny his 
independence and free-agency; and to deny that he can confer it on 
creatures is to deny his omnipotence. But we may proceed to observe, 

2. If we avoid the absurdity of an infinite series of volitions by deny- 
ing that one act of volition is preceded and determined by another, then 
we are told that, according to our theory of the self-determining power 
of the mind, volition is an effect without a cause. In replying to this 
feature of the objection, if we would not dispute about mere words, we 
should know precisely what is meant by the terms cause and effect. 

President Edwards tells us that he sometimes uses the term cause " to 
signify any antecedent, either natural or moral, positive or negative, on 
which an event so depends that it is the ground and reason, either in 
whole or in part, why it is rather than not, or why it is as it is rather 
than otherwise."* So also he tells us that, in accordance with this defini- 
tion of a cause, he u sometimes uses the word effect for the conse- 
quence of another thing which is perhaps rather an occasion than a 
cause, most properly speaking."f But when he employs the term cause 
* Inquiry, part 2, sec. 3. f Ibid. 



324 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

in what he regards to be its proper sense, he uses it " to signify only 
that which has a positive efficiency or influence to produce a thing or 
bring it to pass."* In other words, he uses the term to indicate what is 
properly called an efficient cause. This is the sense in which he is to be 
understood when he speaks of motives as being the cause of volition. 
Consequently, when he calls volition an effect^ his meaning must be that 
it is the correlative of an efficient cause. 

But now let us ask, Is it indeed true that volition is an effect ? If we 
mean by the term whatever comes to pass, of course volition is an effect, 
for no one can deny that volitions come to pass. Or, if we include in 
the definition of the term everything which has a sufficient reason and 
ground of its existence, it will certainly embrace the idea of volition ; 
for, under certain circumstances, the human mind furnishes a sufficient 
reason and ground for the existence of volition. But if we take the term 
in its proper sense, as the correlative of an efficient cause, the sense in 
which it is evidently employed in the objection, we may unhesitatingly 
deny that volition is an effect. 

There are no two things in nature which are more perfectly distinct 
than action and passion. When an effect is produced in anything by the 
action or influence of something else, the object in which the effect is 
produced is wholly passive in regard to it. An effect cannot be the act 
of that in which it is produced, because it results wholly from that which 
produces it. To say, then, that a thing acts, is the same as to say that 
its act is not produced by the action or influence of anything else. To 
suppose that an act is produced by an efficient cause, is to suppose it to 
be a passive effect, and therefore no act at all. 

If these remarks are correct, it will necessarily follow that an act of 
the mind cannot be the effect of an efficient cause. The ideas of action 
and passion, of cause and effect, are opposite, and contrary the one to the 
other. Hence it is absurd to assert that the mind may be caused to act, 
or that a volition can be produced by anything acting upon the mind as 
an efficient cause. It is in this restricted sense that we use the term in 
question when we deny that volition is an effect. 

It is perhaps impossible to gain a clear conception of the nature of 
volition, while we continue to view it in the light of that relation which 
an effect sustains to its efficient cause. The reason is, that volition 
involves no such relation, and to view it as an effect is to look at it in 
the light of a false psychology. We know it has been said, and very 
generally believed, that " all things fall under the one or the other of 
the two following relations : the relation between subject and attribute, 
or the relation between cause and effect." It is in this last category that 
volitions are supposed to be included; but truth requires that they 
should be placed under a very different relation, namely, the relation of 
agent and action. Unless this relation be admitted, and clearly distin- 
* Inquiry, part 2, sec. 3. 



Chap. 5.] OBJECTIONS. 325 

guished from that of cause and effect, it will be impossible that we 
should rightly understand the phenomena of the will. Indeed, it may 
be safely affirmed that the true philosophy of volition is not to be 
determined by abstract considerations, or alone by the power of words, 
because it is not so much a question of logic as of psychology. If, there- 
fore, we would really understand the phenomena of the will, we must 
not undertake to accomplish the end by a mere process of reasoning. 
We must fix the mind upon its own inward workings, and subject our 
volitions to a rigid investigation in the light of consciousness. 

"What, then, is the testimony of consciousness in regard to the nature 
of volition ? Does it appear to be the passive result of a previous act of 
the mind, or of motive, or of anything else % In other words, is it prop- 
erly an effect? President Edwards has more than once told us that 
" the mind can be the cause of no effect, except by a preceding act of 
the mind ;" that " an effect results from the action or influence of its 
cause," and that "nothing is any further an effect than as it proceeds 
from that action or influence." Does our idea of volition correspond 
with this notion of an effect f Does it appear to us that volition, like 
the motion of body, is the passive result of something else? Most 
assuredly not. Volition is action itself, and not the result of action. It 
is an act of the mind, and not a passive state. It is a determination, and 
not that which is determined. It is itself an original producing cause, and 
not a produced effect. He, therefore, who reflects upon this subject in 
the light of experience can hardly fail to see that there is a clear and 
manifest distinction between an act and an effect. 

Now if volition is not an effect, then it will follow that our theory of 
the self-active power of the mind does not involve the absurdity of an 
effect without a cause ; for it does not at all acknowledge the relation of 
cause and effect in the exercise of volition, but only that of agent and 
action. We readily allow that there is in the powers and capabilities of 
the human mind a sufficient ground or reason for the exercise of voli- 
tion, but we deny that it is efficiently caused either by a previous voli- 
tion or by anything else. Thus we think that the doctrine of man's free 
moral agency is successfully vindicated from the charge of absurdity and 
self-contradiction. 

II. It is objected that the libertarian view of this subject is 

CONFLICTIVE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF MOTIVES. 

Necessitarians of every class have uniformly regarded motives as 
being the efficient cause of volition. Dr. Hartley contends that the 
thoughts and feelings of the soul result from the various vibrations of 
the brain, and that these vibrations are produced by the influence of 
motives or surrounding circumstances. He frankly admits that his 
theory implies " the necessity of human actions," and says, " I am sorry 
for it, but I cannot help it." Lord Karnes represents the universe as 
" one vast machine composed of innumerable wheels, all closely linked 



326 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

together, and moving as they are moved." He considers man as " one 
wheel fixed in the middle of a vast automaton, moving just as neces- 
sarily as the sun, moon, or earth." President Edwards represents 
" motives and surrounding objects as reaching through the senses to a 
finely wrought nervous system, and by the impressions made there 
necessarily producing thought, volition, and action, according to the 
fixed laws of cause and effect." 

Thus it is assumed, by the advocates of philosophical necessity, that 
volition is the passive and unavoidable result of motives and surrounding 
circumstances, or in other words, that it is necessarily determined by 
the strongest motive. If this is what we are to understand by the doc- 
trine of motives, we are ready to admit the truth of the objection and to 
declare our opposition to any such doctrine. 

But here it may be proper to inquire, What do necessitarians mean by 
the strongest motive ? Is it the motive which has the most weight and 
importance in itself? Surely not. To say, in this proper sense of the 
phrase, that the will is always determined by the strongest motive, is the 
same as to say that it is always determined by the best reason ; for 
motive, being but a reason of action considered in the mind, the best rea- 
son, being in the nature of things the strongest, must always predominate. 
But this is evidently contrary to fact and experience. If it were not, all 
men would act reasonably and none foolishly ; or, at least, there would be 
no faults among them but those of the understanding, none of the heart 
and affections. The weakest reason, however, too generally succeeds 
when appetite and corrupt affections are present; that is to say, the 
weakest motive. For if this be not allowed, we must say that under the 
influence of appetite the weakest reason also appears to be the strong- 
est, which is also false in fact, for then there would be no sins com- 
mitted against judgment and conviction. But we cannot deny that 
many of our sins are of this description. 

When necessitarians say that the strongest motive always prevails, do 
they mean, by the strongest motive, that which has the greatest influ- 
ence on the mind at the time and under all the circumstances of the case ? 
This is doubtless what they mean. But if so, they only utter this simple 
truism, that the prevailing motive always prevails — a proposition which no 
one in his senses will deny. What, then, it may be inquired, is the pre- 
cise question in controversy between us ? It is not whether the mind 
wills and acts under the influence of motives ; for this is freely admitted 
by every libertarian. But it is simply this : Do motives exert an efficient, 
absolute, and irresistible influence over the will, so as in all cases to 
make it necessarily what it is ? This is the only point in the doctrine of 
motives on which the controversy turns. Necessitarians affirm, and liber- 
tarians deny ; and in support of this denial we offer the following remarks : 

1. The doctrine of philosophical necessity is based upon the false 
foundation that volition is the passive result of motive. Its advocates 



Chap. 5.] OBJECTIONS. 327 

assume that there is no difference between mind and matter in regard 
to the attribute of passivity. The notion inculcated is, that motives 
influence the will just as a weight thrown into an even scale poises it, 
and inclines the beam. This is the grand metaphysical blunder of neces- 
sitarians of every school and of every age. The ancient Manichees, the 
Stoics, the Atheistic and Deistic philosophers, Spinoza, Hobbes, Voltaire, 
Hume, and others, adopted this principle ; and they have been followed 
in this confounding of mind and matter by many learned and excellent 
men, such as President Edwards of Princeton, and President Day of 
Yale College. Indeed, the whole treatise of Edwards on the " Freedom 
of the Will " is based on this error. He assumes that the mind, like 
matter, can act only as it is acted upon ; and from assumption he infers 
that the mind, like matter, is governed by necessity, and that the will 
is therefore necessarily determined by motives. 

It must be admitted either that God has created beings capable of 
acting without being necessarily caused ffc act by something else, or 
that he has not. If he has not created such beings, then it will follow 
that he himself is the only agent in existence, and that angels and men 
are no more self-active than a clod of lifeless matter. This conclusion is 
not only subversive of the distinction between matter and mind, but 
directly repugnant to the whole tenor of Scripture and to the plainest 
dictates of common-sense. And yet this is the only view of the subject 
which accords with the scheme of necessity. 

But now let us suppose, according to Scripture and common-sense, 
that God has endowed his intelligent creatures with a self-moving 
energy ; and that, in the exercise of their derived powers, and independ- 
ent of the absolute control of anything extrinsic to themselves, they are 
capable of voluntary action, and it w T ill be easy to see that there is an 
essential distinction in nature between these intelligent beings and mere 
lifeless matter. And if this distinction be admitted, then it will follow 
that the laws by which intelligent creatures are regulated must be as 
different from those which govern mere matter as mind and matter are 
different in their essential qualities. 

2. Another fundamental error involved in the scheme of necessity is, 
that motives possess an independent and active influence. To see the 
absurdity of this notion let us thoughtfully inquire, What are motives? 
Are they created beings endowed with self-moving energy ? Are they 
capable not only of moving themselves, but of imparting their force to 
what is external to themselves, so as to produce action in that which 
could not act without them? If we answer these questions in the 
affirmative, we ascribe to motives all that self-controlling and self-de- 
termining energy which libertarians claim for the mind itself; and if a 
power to act without being acted upon must be ascribed either to mind 
or to motives in order to account for volition, it is certainly more rational 
to ascribe it to the former than to the latter. 



• 



328 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

If it be said that motives do not possess an independent influence, but 
that they derive their power from some antecedent cause, then it will 
follow either that they are connected with an infinite series of causes, 
which is absurd in itself, or that they depend upon God alone both for 
their existence and efficiency. But if motives themselves do not act — if 
God acts upon man, and determines his volitions by the instrumentality 
of motives, why is the doctrine still maintained that motives determine 
the will ? This is the same as to say that motives do not act and that 
they do act at the same time, which is a contradiction. It is, in fact, 
to give up the argument for necessity, which is founded upon the sup- 
posed influence of motives. Again, if motives are only the instruments 
by which God determines the volitions of his rational creatures, then he 
is the only agent in the universe; while angels and men are mere 
passive instruments, acting only as they are acted upon by Divine 
power. 

But now, if we answer ftiese questions in the negative, as truth 
requires us to do, then we must allow that motives, considered in them- 
selves, can no more act on the mind so as necessarily to determine its 
volitions, than one portion of inert matter can, of i,ts own accord, act 
upon another. The truth is, that motives themselves do not act at all. 
Independent of the mind they can have no existence. It is the mind 
that acts upon them and gives them all the influence which they possess. 
But if motives depend upon the mind both for their existence and influ- 
ence, is it not most unreasonable to suppose that they should control 
the mind in all its acts of volition? We conclude, therefore, that 
though the mind acts in view of motives, yet the controlling power is 
not hi the motives, but in the mind itself. 

This view of the subject is established by the very nature of motives. 
" What are they ? Are they not arguments, reasons, or persuasions ? 
Now, if the mind can exercise no free-agency of its own, in attending to 
arguments, examining reasons, or yielding to persuasions, why address 
them to man, and exhort him to give them their due weight ? The 
very fact that they are motives, arguments, reasons, or persuasions, is 
proof sufficient that they are designed to influence the will, not necessa- 
rily and irresistibly, but only through the agency of man." What, then, 
is it that gives to motives their prevailing influence? It is not any 
inherent power in them, but it is the act of the mind itself,- by which it 
yields to that influence in the exercise of free volition. If it should be 
asked why the mind yields to one motive rather than another, our 
reply would be that the reason is in the mind itself. God has endowed 
us with this power, without which we could not be moral and account- 
able agents. 

3. The doctrine of necessity proceeds upon the false assumption that 
the mind can exercise no agency whatever in regard to motives. The 
theory is that the will is determined by motives ; that motives arise from 



Chap. 5.] OBJECTIONS. 329 

circumstances ; that circumstances are ordered by a power above us and 
beyond our control ; and that, therefore, our volitions necessarily follow 
an order and chain of events appointed and decreed by Infinite Wisdom. 
If this is true, it will necessarily follow that we have no power to displace 
one motive by another, or to control those circumstances from which 
motives flow. 

But who will say that a person may not shun evil company and fly 
from many temptations ? Either this must be allowed, or else it must 
be a link in the chain of necessary events, fixed by a superior power, 
that we should not shun evil company or fly from temptations. Hence 
it would follow that the exhortations, " when sinners entice thee consent 
thou not," and "go not in the way of sinners," are very impertinent, and 
only prove that Solomon was no philosopher. But we are all conscious 
that we have the power to alter, and control, and avoid the force of 
motives. If we have no such power, why does a man resist the same 
temptation at one time to which he yields at another without any 
visible change in the circumstances ? Why does he at one time resist a 
powerful temptation, which is the same as to resist a powerful motive, 
and yield, at another time, to one that is feeble, knowing that he 
does so ? 

But further, the motive or reason for an action may be a bad one and 
yet be prevalent for the want of the presence of a better reason or 
motive to lead to a contrary choice and act ; but in how many instances 
is the true cause why a better reason or stronger motive is not present, 
that we have lived thoughtlessly and in ignorance? And if so, then 
the thoughtless might have been more thoughtful, and the ignorant 
might have acquired better knowledge, and thereby have placed them- 
selves under the influence of stronger and better motives. Thus the 
theory of necessity does not accord with the facts of our own conscious- 
ness, but contradicts them. It is also refuted by every part of the 
moral history of man, and it may be, therefore, concluded that those 
speculations on the human will, to which the theory of philosophical 
necessity has driven its advocates, are equally opposed to the Holy 
Scriptures, to the philosophy of mind, to our observation of what passes 
in others, and to our own convictions. 

4. The doctrine of motives, as it is held by necessitarians, is disproved 
by the absurdity of its logical consequences. We will not attempt to 
push this argument to its utmost extent. It is only necessary that we 
should notice some of the most obvious absurdities which result from 
the doctrine that volitions are necessarily determined by motives. 
And, 

(1.) If volitions are efficiently caused by motives, then the dominion 
of absolute necessity is universal. The steps by which we reach this 
fearful conclusion are few and easily traced. Volitions cannot be 
produced by motives without being preceded by them, as the effect 






330 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

must always be preceded by its cause. Nor can they exert any influ- 
ence over the motives by which they are produced; for they do not 
even come into existence till their producing motives have finished their 
operation. Indeed, no effect can modify its cause unless it can act 
before it exists, which is absurd. But if volition cannot influence the 
motive by which it is produced, it certainly cannot influence the ante- 
cedent to that motive ; and so of every other antecedent in a retrospect- 
ive series, until we reach the first cause. If, then, volition sustains 
a necessary relation to its producing motive, as our opponents assume, 
there can be no room for freedom between the volition and the first 
cause ; for, if volition is necessary, all that precedes it up to the first 
cause must be so too. 

But may there not be freedom between volition and its effect f By 
no means. Both the volition and its sequence, by the theory, are effects ; 
and as every effect sustains a necessary relation to its cause, both the 
volition and all its sequences are necessary. It is, therefore, impossible 
to avoid the conclusion that all human volitions are only so many links 
in the adamantine chain of universal necessity. But what renders this 
conclusion a thousand times more startling is, that it applies to God as 
well as to man. The theory maintains that volition from its very nature, 
without a motive cause, would be an absurdity. But if the nature of 
volition demands a motive cause, that demand must be as applicable to 
the volitions of God as to those of his creatures ; for, whatever differ- 
ences may exist between created minds and the Infinite mind, the theory 
allows none in regard to volition. The very ground on which necessity 
is predicated of human volition requires that it should also be predicated 
of Divine volition. If motives are the only possible cause of volition 
in some minds they are so in all minds. And if this motive-control 
makes the volitions of all minds necessary, it must make all events 
equally so. The will of God, no less than the will of man, must be 
passive. Eternal necessity must rule the one no less than the other. 

(2.) Another consequence of this doctrine of motives is, that it de- 
stroys the very foundation of moral distinctions. If all minds, without 
exception, are under the control of absolute and eternal necessity, then 
human virtue and human vice are impossible. 

It is one of the plainest dictates of common-sense that the criminality 
of an evil act is grounded on the power of the agent to refrain from it. 
But who can contend successfully against an eternal necessity ? Indeed, 
it is impossible that any one should even attempt to act otherwise than 
he does. For if every volition is the necessary effect of some motive, 
how can the mind command a different volition until it is produced by 
a different motive? And if this different motive lies entirely beyond 
the control of the agent, the very attempt to act otherwise than he does 
lies as far beyond his control as are the movements of the heavenly 
bodies. 



Chap. 5.] OBJECTIONS. 331 

Hence we are forced to the conclusion, if we argue correctly, that all 
moral creatures are equally undeserving of either praise or blame. For, 
though we are told that the character of an act lies in the will, yet the 
cause of the will lies in the motive, and over this the agent has no con- 
trol. The greatest crimes in the universe are as necessary as the most 
distinguished virtues ; and though we may regard the criminal as being 
unfortunate, yet in view of this necessity, and of the claims of eternal 
justice, we dare not pronounce him guilty. As well might men be 
accounted guilty for becoming hungry or thirsty ; or for any other 
effect that is necessarily produced by the established laws of their phys- 
ical constitution. 

(3.) This doctrine of the causality of motives is injurious to the char- 
acter of God. If motives are the only possible cause of volition, and if 
an effect sustains a necessary relation to its cause, then we must allow 
either that God puts forth no volitions at all, which would contradict 
both Scripture and reason, or that his volitions are caused by motives, 
and therefore necessary; but in either case we would deny his free- 
agency. To say that his volitions are determined by motives is to 
place him under the same law of necessity which is supposed to govern 
his creatures, and thus to deny his absolute independence. Nay, it 
is virtually to say that eternal necessity, and not God, governs the 
world. 

But if we suppose God to be the free and independent governor of 
all things, and confine our notions of moral necessity to the actions of 
his intelligent creatures, still this scheme is derogatory to the Divine 
character. If virtue alone existed in the moral world, we could trace 
with pleasure the necessitating hand of God in the volitions and actions 
of his intelligent creatures. But when we fix our attention upon the 
ungodly deeds of wicked men, and are told that these were rendered 
necessary from all eternity by the immutable decree of God, and secured 
in time by a necessary chain of causes and effects, we instinctively 
inquire, Is there not some other solution of this awful subject which 
would exhibit the Supreme Governor of the moral World in a more 
amiable and engaging light ? Is it not a most fearful conclusion, indeed, 
that falsehood, treachery, murder, and blasphemy are declarations of 
the Divine will ? Yet such they must be if the doctrine of philosophical 
necessity is true. 

III. The last objection we will notice is, that free moeal agency is 

IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 

This is the most frequently employed argument of necessitarians 
against the doctrine of free moral agency, and one on which they rely 
with the greatest degree of confidence. Luther calls the foreknowledge 
of God " a thunderbolt, to dash free-will to atoms." * And Dr. Dick, a 
distinguished Calvinistic divine, has said that if our actions are certainly 

* Bondage of the Will. 



332 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book III. 

foreknown, " it is as impossible to avoid them, as it is to pluck the sun 
from the firmament." * Hence necessitarians tell us that we must either 
deny the foreknowledge of God or give up the doctrine of man's free 
moral agency. But our reply is, We will do neither the one nor the 
other. 

As to the Divine foreknowledge, we believe that it extends to all things 
great and small, whether necessary or free, and that it is perfect and 
certain. We believe, moreover, that what God foreknows will certainly 
come to pass. In this respect the conclusion is the same, whether it be 
deduced from foreknowledge or concomitant knowledge. If a thing is 
known now to exist, it follows, by an absolute certainty, that it does 
exist ; for otherwise it could not possibly be known to exist. So, like- 
wise, if an event is certainly foreknown, it follows, with equal certainty, 
that it will come to pass. We conclude, therefore, that what God fore- 
knows will most certainly and infallibly take place ; but this infallible 
certainty has nothing to do with the manner in which future events will 
be brought about. It does not determine whether they will take their 
existence on the principle of necessity or on that of free moral agency. 

By the necessity of any action or event we are to understand the 
impossibility that it should not be, or that it should be different from 
what it is. It is in this sense the term is employed when necessitarians 
tell us that Divine prescience implies necessity. If anything can be free 
from this kind of necessity, one would expect to find it in human volition ; 
but according to the theory of President Edwards, the will is absolutely 
and efficiently determined by the influence of motives. So also Dr. Dick 
tells us that " a man chooses what appears to be good, and he chooses it 
necessarily, in this sense, that he could not do otherwise." f This sense 
of the term is evidently implied in the objection ; for, as our doctrine of 
free moral agency acknowledges the certainty of future events, it cannot 
be irreconcilable with the foreknowledge of God, unless his foreknowl- 
edge is supposed to imply their absolute necessity. 

But does the foreknowledge of God imply the necessity of all future 
events ? This is what we deny, and what, we believe, can never be 
proved. Those who take the affirmative of this question are bound to 
admit one of two things — either that the foreknowledge of God makes 
future events necessary, or that he cannot foreknow them unless they 
are necessary. Let us, then, look for a moment at the consequences of 
each. 

1. To say that the Divine prescience makes future events necessary, is 
the same as to say that necessity governs all things in heaven and earth. 
It is to say that all the volitions and actions of angels and men are as 
necessary as the movements of the planets — that the rebellion of holy 
angels, the sin of our first parents, and all the ungodly deeds that wicked 
men have ever committed, were rendered necessary by the foreknowl- 
* Dick's Theology, Lee. 34. f Ibid. 



Chap. 5.] OBJECTIONS. 333 

edge of God, and could not have been avoided. Moreover, if whatever 
is foreknown is thereby rendered necessary, and cannot be otherwise, 
then, as God foreknows from eternity every act that he would perform 
throughout all duration, he is a necessary agent in all that he does, act- 
ing only as he is acted upon by stern necessity. Thus we see that the 
" thunderbolt " of the great Reformer, which was supposed to " dash 
free-will to atoms," falls with as destructive weight upon the free-agency 
of man in Paradise, and even upon the freedom of God himself, as it 
does upon the free-will of man in his present condition. 

But is it not most glaringly absurd to suppose that the great Jehovah, 
in all his acts, is impelled by necessity ? This is to suppose the eternal 
existence of some superior power, separate and distinct from himself; 
which is at once to deny his independence and supremacy. It cannot, 
therefore, be true that all the acts of God are brought about by neces- 
sity. Yet they are foreknown ; and if the foreknowledge of God does 
not render his own acts necessary or destroy his free-agency, so neither 
can it render the actions of his moral creatures necessary, nor destroy 
their free-agency. 

To suppose that the Divine foreknowledge makes future events neces- 
sary is incompatible with the very nature of knowledge in general. What 
is knowledge ? Is it an active power, possessing a distinct and inde- 
pendent existence ? We answer, No. It is nothing more than a clear 
and certain perception of truth and fact. It is, therefore, passive in its 
nature, and possesses only a relative and dependent existence. And 
though it is often said that "knowledge is power," yet nothing more is 
intended by this expression than that it directs an active agent in the 
exertion of his power. What influence can mere knowledge exert upon 
any event, whether past, present, or future? Evidently none at all; 
and for this reason, that it is knowledge and not power. 

2. But now let us turn our attention to the other alternative, namely, 
that God cannot foreknow future events unless they are necessary. 
This seems to be the position which is generally assumed by necessita- 
rians, and which appears to be based upon the supposition that the voli- 
tions and actions of free moral agents are in their very nature uncer- 
tain. "There must be a certainty in things themselves," says Presi- 
dent Edwards, " before they are certainly known." * But what is this 
certainty in things themselves, or in human volitions, without which they 
are incapable of being foreknown ? The answer is obvious ; for Edwards 
everywhere contends that unless our volitions are brought to pass by 
the influence of moral causes — that unless they are necessarily produced 
by an " effectual power and efficacy," they are altogether uncertain. 
Hence he clearly maintains, that unless human volitions are brought to 
pass by the necessitating influence of motives, they are not certain in 
themselves, and are therefore incapable of being foreknown. 
* Inquiry, Part 2, sec. 12. 



334 MAN'S MORAL AGENCY. [Book HI. 

That this mode of reasoning may hold good in regard to human 
knowledge we will not deny ; but that it will apply to the foreknowl- 
edge of God is what cannot be shown. If there is anything in us 
approaching to foreknowledge, it must result from a knowledge of some- 
thing now existing between which and the event foreknown there is a 
necessary connection. But is it proper to conclude, because this is the 
case with man, that it must also be the case with Deity ? Shall we 
make our own limited and feeble intellects the measure of all possible 
modes of knowledge with God ? 

We freely admit that an event cannot be foreknown unless it will 
certainly come to pass. But why may not the free volitions and actions 
of moral creatures be as certain as those events that are necessary ? To 
say they cannot, is a mere assumption which never can be proved. To 
suppose them to be certain and uncertain at the same time would 
involve a contradiction ; but there is no contradiction in supposing them 
to be future, certain, and free. 

That we can gain as clear and certain knowledge of a past free action 
as of one that was necessarily produced, no one will deny. May we 
not then reasonably suppose that God can foreknow the free volitions 
and actions of his moral creatures, as well as those events that are 
necessary ? That he cannot, is more than any finite being should pre- 
sume to declare. 

But if all future events must be necessary in order to be foreknown, 
then it will follow, either that this necessity exists in the very nature 
of things themselves or in God. To say that this necessity arises from 
the nature of things themselves, is to take one's stand upon the plat- 
form of Stoical fatalism. It is to assume that all things in heaven and 
earth are bound together by an intricate series and concatenation of 
causes ; that fate and not God governs the world ; and that all moral 
creatures in the universe, with the Infinite One in the same category, 
are bound by the fetters of eternal necessity. These are only some of 
the absurd and shocking consequences which result from this scheme of 
necessity, but they are sufficient to refute it. 

Are we, then, to place the necessity of all things in God ? This is 
our only alternative ; and this, we believe, is what necessitarians main- 
tain. " If we allow the attribute of prescience," says Mr. Buck, " the 
idea of a decree must certainly be allowed also, for how can an action 
that is really to come to pass be foreseen if it be not determined ? God 
knew everything from the beginning, but this he could not know if he 
had not so determined it."* Again: "No effect can be viewed as 
future," says Dr. Dick, " or, in human language, can be the object of 
certain expectation, but when considered in relation to its efficient 
cause, and the cause of all things that ever shall exist is the purpose of 
God."f 

* Theological Dictionary. \ Dick's Theology, Lee. 21. 



Chap. 5.] OBJECTIONS. 335 

In these two brief quotations we have the fundamental principles of 
the necessitarian scheme. They are these: 1. That God is the moving 
and efficient cause of all things ; 2. That all things are made necessary 
by his purpose or determination ; and, 3. That he foreknows future 
events, because he has made them necessary. Neither time nor space 
will allow us to enter into an extended examination of this theory. 
We can only glance at some of its consequences. And, 

First, If God is the efficient cause of all things, then the horrible 
consequence must follow, that he is the efficient cause of all the moral 
evil that ever existed or ever will exist. It is no answer to this diffi- 
culty to say that God is only the cause of the act that is sinful, but not 
of its sinfulness. Wherein does the sinfulness of an act lie ? Is it not 
in the will ? But according to this theory, God controls the will and 
makes that as necessary as the act itself. 

Secondly, If the purpose or determination of God makes all things 
necessary, then it will follow that a necessity as absolute as Stoical 
fatalism governs the moral world ; and that falsehood, treachery, blas- 
phemy, and murder are rendered as necessary by the Divine purpose 
as piety and virtue. 

Thirdly, To say that God foreknows future events because he has 
made them necessary, is to say that an essential attribute of Deity is 
dependent for its existence upon an act of the Divine mind, the fore- 
knowledge of God upon his purpose or decree. 

The conclusion, then, which we draw from the whole argument is 
this, that though our doctrine of free moral agency is incompatible with 
the necessitarian notion of Divine foreknowledge, yet it is in perfect 
harmony with the true doctrine upon this subject, and so the objection 
falls to the ground. 



336 THE REMEDIAL DISPENSATION. [Book IV. 



BOOK IV. 

THE REMEDIAL DISPENSATION. 

We have shown from the teachings of the Holy Scriptures that our 
first parents fell from that state of holiness and happiness in which they 
were created, and became liable to death temporal, spiritual, and eter- 
nal; that all their posterity are born into the world with a corrupt 
nature, from which rebellion against God universally flows ; and that 
consequently the whole world, as St. Paul forcibly expresses it, " is 
guilty before God." 

Had no method of forgiveness and restoration been devised with 
respect to human offenders, the penalty of death would have been 
immediately executed upon the first sinning pair, and with them the 
human race would have utterly perished. But God, in his infinite 
benevolence toward his offending creatures, made with Adam a cove- 
nant of pardon and salvation, which, however, did not terminate upon 
himself alone, but comprehended the whole human race. 

Since, then, the penalty of death was not immediately executed in all 
its extent upon the first sinning pair, and is not immediately executed 
upon their sinning descendants ; since they were actually restored to 
the Divine favor, and the same blessing is offered to us, our inquiries 
must, in the next place, be directed to the nature of that remedial dis- 
pensation in which God lays aside in so great a measure the sternness 
and inflexibility of his office as Judge and becomes the dispenser of 
grace and favor to the guilty. This will lead us to examine the princi- 
ples of God's moral government, the doctrine of atonement, and the 
benefits which are derived to man " through the redemption that is in 
Jesus Christ." 



Chap. 1.] PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. 337 



CHAPTER I. 

PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. 

In the investigation of the principles of God's moral government it will 
be necessary to illustrate to some extent the Divine character ; to point 
out the connection which exists between the essential justice of God 
and the establishment of that legal constitution which requires death as 
the penalty of sin, and to show that Divine justice requires the execu- 
tion of the penalty. Let us, then, direct our attention, 

I. To the Character of God. 

The existence of a Divine law obligatory upon man is not doubted 
by any who admit the existence and government of God. We have 
already seen its requirements, its extent, and its sanctions, and have 
proved that its penalty consists not merely in severe sufferings in this 
life, but in death ; that is, the separation of the body and the soul ; 
the former being left under the power of corruption, the latter being 
separated from God and made liable to punishment in another state of 
being. 

It is, therefore, important to keep in view the extent and severity of 
the punishment denounced against transgression, as being illustrative 
of the character of God both with reference to his essential holiness and 
to his proceedings as governor of the world. The miseries connected 
with sin, whether as natural consequences or as the results of Divine 
visitation, must all be regarded as punitive,' for it would be abhorrent 
to all our notions of the Divine character to suppose that perfectly 
innocent beings should be subject to such miseries. They are only to be 
accounted for upon the ground of their being the results of a supreme 
judicial administration, which bears a strict and often a very terrible 
character. 

Though God has manifested his severity against moral offense quite 
independent of the Scriptures, yet it is to them that we must resort for 
the most important illustrations of his character, and especially of his 
holiness and justice. 

1. With respect to the holiness of God the Scriptures show us that 
it is something more than a mere absence of moral evil — more tljan the 
approval of moral goodness, or even a delight in it. They prove that 
whatever is opposed to it is the object of an active displacence, of hatred, 
of opposition and resistance ; and that this sentiment is inflexible and 
eternal. God is " of purer eyes than to behold evil,, and cannot look on 



338 PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. [Book IV. 

iniquity." To him " even the thoughts of the wicked are an abomina- 
tion." But, 

2. With respect to the justice of God it will be necessary to con- 
sider it more at large, since a right conception of this attribute of the 
Divine nature lies at the foundation of the Christian doctrine of atone- 
ment. 

Justice is usually considered as universal or particular. Universal 
justice comprehends all the moral attributes of God, and consists in the 
rectitude of his nature. Particular justice consists in a practical con- 
formity to the principles of equity, and is either commutative, which 
respects equals, or distributive, which is the dispensing of rewards and 
punishments, and is exercised only by governors. It is the justice of 
God in this last view, but still in connection with universal justice, with 
which we are now concerned — that rector al sovereign justice by which 
he maintains his own rights and the rights of others and gives to every 
one his due, according to that legal constitution which he has himself 
established. And as the legal constitution under which God has placed 
his creatures is the result of universal justice or righteousness — the holi- 
ness, goodness, truth, and wisdom of God united ; so his distributive 
justice, or his respect for the laws which he has established, is, in 
every respect and degree, faultless and perfect. In this legal con- 
stitution nothing is enjoined or prohibited, nothing promised or 
threatened, but what is conformable to the moral perfections of God. 
" The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." 
Rom. vii, 12. 

Of the strictness and severity of the punitive justice of God the sen- 
tence of death pronounced upon sin is sufficient evidence ; and the actual 
infliction of bodily death is the standing proof to the world that the 
threatening is not a dead-letter, and that in the Divine administration 
continual and strict regard is had to the claims and dispensations of dis- 
tributive justice. " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do eight ?" Gen. 
xviii, 25. So St. Paul speaks of " the day of wrath, and revelation of 
the righteous judgment of God." Rom. ii, 5. 

The legal constitution, then, which we are under secures life to the 
obedient, but dooms offenders to die. To execute this penalty, as 
well as to bestow the reward of obedience, is the office of distributive 
justice ; and the appointment of the penalty and the execution of it are 
both the results of the essential rectitude of God. But we will now 
proceed to^notice, 

IT. The connection between the universal justice of God and 

THIS ySGAL CONSTITUTION WHICH REQUIRES SO SEVERE A PENALTY 
AGAINST SIN. 

Whether we succeed or not in discovering this connection the fact 
remains the same, firmly grounded on the most explicit testimony of 
Scripture. But believing that the question is not entirely beyond our 



Chap. 1.] PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. 339 

grasp, and that it is one of importance, we will give it a brief consid- 
eration. And, 

1. The creation of beings capable of choice, and endowed with affec- 
tions, seems necessarily to involve the possibility of volitions and acts 
contrary to the will of the Creator, and, consequently, a liability to suf- 
fer. In the prevention of these evils both justice and benevolence are 
concerned. That the Creator has an absolute right to the entire obedi- 
ence of his moral creatures no one will deny. Any delinquency on their 
part is a violation of this right, which violation justice is therefore bound 
to prevent. But as all opposition to the will of God must be the source of 
misery to the offender, even independent of direct punishment, the pre- 
vention of moral evil is as much the work of benevolence as it is of justice. 

2. To prevent evil of every kind, and to secure the benevolent pur- 
poses for which creative power was exerted, were the ends, therefore, 
of that administration which arose out of the existence of moral agents. 
No sooner did they exist than a Divine government was established 
over them, and to the ends just mentioned all its acts must have been 
directed. The first act was the publication of the will of God ; for 
where there is no declared law there can be no rational government. 
The second act was to give motives to obedience ; for to creatures liable 
to evil, though created good, these were necessary. But as they were 
made/ree, and designed to yield a willing service, more than rational 
inducements, operating through the judgment and affections, could not 
be applied. These motives were the promise of a happy life, the justice 
of the service required, and the evil to be feared from disobedience. 

3. But now let us suppose that nothing less than a positive penalty 
of the most tremendous kind could be sufficient to deter free moral 
creatures from transgression ; that even this penalty would not in all 
cases be sufficient ; but that in no case would a less powerful motive 
prove sufficiently cautionary; then, in such circumstances, the moral 
perfections of the Divine nature would undoubtedly require the ordina- 
tion of such a penalty, however tremendous. 

It was certainly required by the essential rectitude of God that he 
should adopt the most effectual means of preventing the introduction of 
moral evil among his rational creatures, and, when introduced, of check- 
ing and limiting its progress. If, therefore, there were no means equally 
effectual for these purposes as the issuing of a law enforced by the pen- 
alty of death, then the adoption of such a measure was required by the 
holiness, the justice, and the benevolence of God. 

But is the penalty of death, as the punishment of sin, the most effect- 
ual means of counteracting moral evil ? To all who believe the Bible 
the answer is, that as this has actually been adopted as the universal 
penalty of transgression,* and as this is confessedly the highest possible 
penalty, nothing less than this could be effectual to the purpose of gov- 

* See Book iii, chap 3. 



340 PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. [Book IV. 

ernment and to the manifestation of the Divine rectitude. If it could, 
then a superfluous and excessive means has been adopted for which no 
reason can be given, and which impeaches the wisdom of God, the 
office of which attribute is to adapt means to ends by an exact adjust- 
ment ; if not, then it was required by all the moral attributes of the 
Divine nature. But, 
III. Does the justice of God oblige him to execute the penalty 

OF HIS LAW? 

All the opponents of the doctrine of atonement deny this, and argue, 
first, that God has power to give up his own rights and to pardon sin 
on prerogative ; secondly, that when repentance succeeds offense there 
is a moral fitness in forgiveness, since the offender presents a reformed 
character; and finally, that the very affections of goodness and mercy, 
so eminent in God, require us to conclude that he is always ready, upon 
the repentance of his creatures, to forgive their delinquencies, or, at 
most, to make their punishments light and temporary. 

1. It is contended that God may give up his own rights. This must 
mean either his right to obedience from his creatures, or his right to 
punish disobedience when that occurs. With respect to God's right 
to be obeyed, the perfect rectitude of his nature forbids him to give it 
up, or in any sense to relax it. ISTo king can morally give up his right 
to be obeyed in the full degree which may be enjoined by the laws of 
his kingdom. No parent can give up his right to obedience from his 
children and be blameless. In both cases, if this be done voluntarily, 
it argues an indifference to that principle of rectitude on which such 
duties depend, and, therefore, a moral imperfection. But as this can- 
not be attributed to God, he never can yield up his right to be obeyed. 

But may he not give up his right to punish when disobedience has 
actually taken place ? By no means ; for this would be the same as to 
give up his right to be obeyed. It is only by punitive acts that the 
Supreme Governor guards this right, and shows that he will not relax 
it. If sin is not punished, then it will follow that his right to obedience 
is given up. Again, if impunity were confined to a few offenders there 
would be partiality in God ; but if it were extended to all, then would 
he renounce his sovereignty, and show himself indifferent to the princi- 
ples of rectitude and moral order. 

In addition to this, we have already seen that, by a formal law, the 
highest possible penalty has been threatened in all cases of transgres- 
sion, and that a less awful sanction would have been wholly inadequate 
to the end intended. If so, then not to exact the penalty would be to 
repeal the law, to reduce its sanction to an empty threat, incompatible 
with the veracity of God, and to render it altogether inert ; inasmuch 
as it would soon be seen whether sin is followed by punishment or not. 

2. The notion that repentance, on the part of the offender, renders 
him a fit object of pardon, will be found equally fallacious. — This argu- 



Chap. 1.] PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. 341 

ment assumes that it is morally unfit, that is, wrong, to pardon the 
impenitent ; and this is expressly conceded by Socinus, who says, that 
" not to give pardon, in case of impenitence, is due to the rectitude and 
equity of God." It follows, then, that those who believe repentance to 
be necessary, in order to render it morally fit for God to pardon offend- 
ers, must give up the doctrine of pardon by mere prerogative. For, 
according to their own showing, in order to make forgiveness an act 
of moral fitness, some consideration is required — something which shall 
make it right, as well as merciful, in God to forgive. Those who urge 
that repentance is that consideration do thus unwittingly give up their 
own principle and tacitly adopt that of the satisfactionists, differing only 
as to what does actually constitute it right in God to forgive. We deny, 
however, that mere repentance is sufficient to render it morally fit for 
God to pardon offenders ; for, 

(1.) There is no intimation in the Scriptures that the penalty of the 
law is not to be executed in case of repentance. There was certainly 
none given in the promulgation of the law to Adam ; none in the deca- 
logue ; none in any of those passages which speak of the legal conse- 
quences of sin ; as, " the soul that sinneth, it shall die," — " the wages 
of sin is death." The Scriptures, it is true, enjoin repentance, but then 
it is in connection with a system of atonement and satisfaction inde- 
pendent of repentance, and of which repentance itself is an effect. 

(2.) Nor is it true that repentance changes the legal relation of the 
guilty to God. Nothing but pardon can change that relation; for 
nothing but pardon can cancel crime, and it is clear that repentance is 
not pardon. The sentence of the law is directed against transgression, 
and repentance does not annihilate the fact of that transgression, but, on 
the contrary, is an acknowledgment of it. The charge lies against the 
offender ; he may be an obdurate or a penitent criminal ; but, in either 
case, he is equally guilty of all for which he stands truly charged ; and 
how then can his relation to the Lawgiver be changed by repentance ? 

(3.) As repentance cannot produce this change of relation, so neither 
can it save offenders from the penal consequences of transgression. For, 
though men are now under a dispensation of grace, yet the Scriptures 
represent repentance as incapable of turning away deserved vengeance 
from those who have been obstinately wicked. " Then shall they call 
upon me, but I will not answer ; they shall seek me early, but they shall 
not find me." Prov. i, 28. Here, to call upon God, and to seek him 
early — that is, earnestly and carefully — are acts of repentance and ref- 
ormation too, and yet they have no power to arrest the exercise of 
punitive justice. 

The general course of Providence is also in opposition to the notion 
that mere repentance can arrest punishment. The sufferings which fol- 
low sin in the present life by natural consequence, and the established 
constitution of things^ are as much the effects of God's appointment as 



342 PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. [Book IV. 

the direct penalties attached to the violation of his laws ; but repent- 
ance does not prevent these penal consequences — it does not restore 
health injured by intemperance, property wasted by profusion, or char- 
acter dishonored by vice. 

(4.) Those who contend that repentance is a reason for the non-exe- 
cution of the penalty of the law, seem entirely to overlook or to disre- 
gard its true nature. Is it nothing more than a sorrow for sin, merely 
because of the painful consequences to which the offender is exposed ? 
Every criminal, when convicted and in danger of immediate punishment, 
would as necessarily repent, in this sense, as he would necessarily be 
sorry to be liable to pain ; and if such sorrow were true repentance it 
would in all cases, according to this doctrine, render it morally fit and 
right that forgiveness should be exercised, and consequently wrong that 
it should be refused. But to grant pardon on such a condition would 
be tantamount to the entire and absolute repeal of all law, and the anni- 
hilation of all government. 

If true repentance be allowed to consist in a perception of the evil of 
sin, and a dislike to it as such, with real remorse and sorrow that the 
authority of God has been slighted and his goodness abused — and this 
is certainly the light in which it is exhibited in the Scriptures — then it 
is forgotten that man in his fallen condition is incapable of penitence of 
this kind. That repentance which the Scriptures require is said to be 
the gift of Christ, whom " God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour," 
that he might " give repentance," as well as " forgiveness of sins," — a 
gift quite superfluous, if to repent truly were in the power of man and 
independent of Christ. To suppose, therefore, that man is capable of 
evangelical repentance, is to assume human w nature to be what it is not. 

(5.) With this view of the insufficiency of repentance to obtain par- 
don the Scriptures agree. John the Baptist was, emphatically, a 
preacher of repentance; but he gave no intimation that repentance 
alone would render it morally fit that God should forgive sin. He 
taught his disciples to look for a higher baptism than that which he 
administered — the baptism of the Holy Ghost; and to "behold the 
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Thus he 
virtually declared, that the repentance which he preached could not 
take away sin ; but that it was taken away by Christ alone, and that 
in his sacrificial character, as " the Lamb of God." Moreover, he con- 
cludes his discourse concerning Jesus with these memorable words : 
" He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life ; and he that believ- 
eth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on 
him." John iii, 36. The testimony of John therefore is, that something 
more than repentance, even faith in Christ, is necessary to salvation. 
Such also is the doctrine both of our Lord and his apostles ; for though 
they declare that men must repent, they no less explicitly teach that 
they must believe. 



Chap. 2.] PKIMITIVE SACEIFICES. 343 



CHAPTEE II. 

THE ATONEMENT: PEIMITIYE SACEIFICES. 

Having shown that sin is neither forgiven by the mere prerogative 
of God nor on account of repentance in man, we will proceed to 
investigate that method of love, wisdom, and justice by which a merci- 
ful God justifies the ungodly; or, in other words, the doctrine of atone- 
ment by the sufferings and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. That we 
may follow the order in which this doctrine has been gradually unfolded 
to the world, we will examine it, first, in its connection with patriarchal 
sacrifices ; secondly, as it is exhibited in the sacrifices of the law ; and, 
thirdly, as it is set forth in the Scriptures of the New Testament. 

It will be our business, then, in this chapter to consider the doctrine 
of atonement in its connection with the primitive or patriarchal sacri- 
fices. In doing this we will attempt to show that the antemosaic 
sacrifices were of Divine origin, and that they were expiatory in their 
character. 

I. They were of Divine Oeigin. 

It is admitted that the Scriptures make no mention of the first insti- 
tution of animal sacrifices, and from this fact some have concluded that 
they proceeded originally from a dictate of nature, or from a grateful 
inclination to return unto God some of his own blessings. But this is 
no argument against the Divine appointment of this rite ; for it is to be 
expected that in so brief an account of so large a portion of time as is 
included in the antediluvian history many things should be omitted. 
Thus, Moses says nothing of the prophecy of Enoch, or of the preaching 
of Noah, though these are both referred to in other parts of Scripture.* 
The Jews, for whom Moses primarily wrote, knew that their own 
sacrifices were of Divine institution, and that God in a miraculous man- 
ner had manifested his acceptance of them. Nor had they any reason 
to doubt that the patriarchal sacrifices had been so instituted, and so 
accepted from the beginning. It was not necessary, therefore, that the 
sacred historians should expatiate upon a matter which had doubtless 
descended to them by a clear and uninterrupted tradition. But that 
the rite of sacrifice was originally of Divine appointment may be 
argued, 

1. From the impossibility that it should have originated with man. 
— Such a system of worship could not have had its origin in human 
reason. It is true, a grateful sense of the blessings of God will incline 
* See Jude xiv ; and 2 Peter ii, 15. 



34:4 THE ATONEMENT. [Book III. 

men at any time to offer him praise and thanksgiving. But what dic- 
tate of reason could ever have taught man that to destroy the best of 
his fruits, or the choicest of his cattle, would be a service acceptable to 
God ? Goodness and mercy and compassion are constantly ascribed to 
that Infinite Being. Who then could have thought, that putting an 
innocent and inoffensive animal to torture, spilling its blood upon the 
earth, and burning its flesh upon an altar, would be either a grateful 
sight, or "an offering of a sweet smelling savor" to the Most High? 

Moreover, that the life of an irrational animal should ransom the life 
of a man, and that its blood should have any virtue to wash away his 
sin, to purify his conscience, and to restore him to the favor of an 
offended God, are not the dictates of reason, or the teachings of the 
light of nature, but quite the contrary. Nor could man have any right 
to take the life of an animal, if that right had not been conferred upon 
him by the Creator. But it is evident that God did not confer this 
right upon the antediluvians for any other purpose than that of sacrifice. 
They had no right to take the life of an animal for food, much less for 
unnecessary torture. It follows, therefore, that for them to have taken 
away animal life without a positive Divine appointment would have 
been an act of cruelty and wickedness, and not of acceptable worship. 

That this rite did not originate in any demand of our nature is unde- 
niable ; for no one will say that we have any natural instinct or appetite 
to gratify in spilling the blood and burning the flesh of innocent crea- 
tures. Indeed, the taking of animal life is even now shocking to human 
nature, though custom has long made it familiar. Nor could the rite 
have had its foundation in appetite, since it was first observed at . a 
period when the whole sacrifice was consumed by fire, or when, if it 
had not been so consumed, men wholly abstained from flesh. 

Again, the practice cannot be resolved into priestcraft ; for no order 
of priests existed when the rite of sacrifice was first observed. And if 
men resolve it into superstition, they must not only suppose that the 
first family were superstitious, but also that God, by his acceptance of 
Abel's sacrifice, gave his sanction to a superstitious and irrational prac- 
tice. But as no one will be thus bold, our only rational conclusion is, 
that the rite of animal sacrifice is of Divine appointment. This position 
is indicated, 

2. By the distinction of animals into clean and unclean: — This dis- 
tinction cannot be rationally accounted for, unless we admit that God 
had given commandment for certain kinds of beasts to be offered in 
sacrifice ; and as this distinction existed before the flood, and conse- 
quently at a time when the grant of animal food had not been made to 
man, it presents a strong proof of the Divine appointment of animal 
sacrifices at that early period. This is corroborated by the fact that 
Noah was commanded to take with him into the ark a greater num- 
ber of clean than of unclean animals ; the former by sevens, and the 



Chap. 2.] PRIMITIVE SACRIFICES. 345 

latter by two of a kind. Now if the clean beasts were such as had been 
appointed as proper for sacrifice, and if we bear in mind that Noah 
offered sacrifices immediately on leaving the ark, the propriety of the 
command is at once manifest, but on no other principle. But the 
Divine origin of this rite is more fully established, 

3. By a reference to particular cases of patriarchal sacrifice. — The 
first act of sacrifice of which we have any express record is that of Cain 
and Abel in Gen. iv, 3, 4 : " Cain brought of the fruits of the ground 
an offeriDg unto the Lord ; and Abel, he also brought of the firstlings 
of his flock -and of the fat thereof;" or, according to the Hebrew idiom, 
the fattest or best of his flock. With this account of the transaction we 
ought to connect the comment of St. Paul upon it as it is recorded in 
Heb. xi, 4 : " By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice 
than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God 
testifying of his gifts." 

Here two things are to be considered. One is that the sacrifice of 
Abel was offered " by faith y" the other, that it was divinely approved. 
When we examine what is said in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews 
respecting the faith of the ancient worthies, we at once discover that it 
rested in all cases on some Divine declaration or promise ; and the plain 
inference is, that such must have been the case in regard to the faith of 
Abel. Indeed, this is clearly implied in the very nature of faith ; for 
the apostle tells us that it comes " by hearing, and hearing by the word 
of God." If we deny that Abel, in this solemn transaction, was acting 
under Divine instructions, we see no possible way in which his sacrifice 
could have been offered " by faith.'''' Hence, we conclude that this act 
of sacrificial worship was performed in accordance with a previous 
Divine appointment. 

The same conclusion will follow from the fact that the sacrifice of 
Abel was divinely approved. We need not now inquire into the man- 
ner in which God manifested his approbation of this act of religious 
worship. It affects not the argument whether it was by an internal 
impression on the mind of the worshiper, by an audible voice, or by 
sending fire from heaven to consume the sacrifice. The important truth 
would still be before us, that Abel in this transaction " obtained witness 
that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts." But are we to sup- 
pose that he obtained this Divine testimony by a means which God had 
not appointed ? If not, the Divine origin of the rite of animal sacrifice 
must be allowed. 

The next instance of patriarchal sacrifice which we shall notice in this 
connection is that of Noah immediately on his leaving the ark, which 
is recorded in Gen. viii, 20, 21 : "And Noah builded an altar unto the 
Lord, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and 
offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet 
savor ; and the Lord said, I will not again curse the ground any more 



346 THE ATONEMENT. [Book III. 

for man's sake." To see that Noah performed this act of worship in 
compliance with a previous appointment of God it is only necessary 
that we should consider a few of the attendant circumstances : 1 . He 
engaged in the work as soon as he came forth from the ark. There 
was no time for the exercise of his inventive genius, which we may sup- 
pose would have been necessary, had he not been previously familiar 
with this mode of worship. 2. He " took of every clean beast and of 
every clean fowl ;" which shows that the distribution of animals into 
clean and unclean was an appointment of God in reference to sacrifice, 
and consequently that the rite itself ,was divinely appointed. 3. The 
Lord approved this sacrifice ; he " smelled a sweet savor ;" which clearly 
proves that this mode of worship was in accordance with his own insti- 
tution. 

Again, in Gen. xv, 9, 10, we see Abraham on a memorable occasion 
engaging in the performance of animal sacrifice at the direct command 
of God and with Divine approbation. " And he said unto him, Take 
me a heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a 
ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon. And he 
took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each 
piece one against another : but the birds divided he not." In this case 
there can be no dispute in regard to the Divine appointment of the sac- 
rifice, for it was expressly commanded. And if to this we add that 
God manifested his acceptance of the offering by the " burning lamp," 
the symbol of the Divine presence which " passed between " its pieces, 
our argument is made good. 

One other instance only we will adduce in support of the present posi- 
tion. It is the case of Abraham in presenting his son Isaac as a burnt- 
offering to the Lord on Mount Moriah. In this transaction, which is 
recorded in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, we have a clear proof 
that animal sacrifices were originally instituted by Divine appointment. 
This will appear if we consider that God expressly commanded Abraham 
to go to Mount Moriah and there offer a burnt-offering ; that Abraham 
spoke of his intended sacrifice as of a service to which he had been 
accustomed ; that Isaac, by asking the question, " Where is the lamb 
for a burnt-offering ?" discovered a familiarity with that mode of wor- 
ship, and that God did actually provide the offering which was sacri- 
ficed instead of Isaac. All these circumstances testify that sacrificial 
worship was an institution of God. Believing, therefore, that the point 
in discussion is fully established, we will pursue it no further. 

II. The Antemosaic Sacrifices were expiatory. 

We have an argument in support of the expiatory character of the 
patriarchal sacrifices, 

1. In the prohibition of blood, when the use of animal food was 
granted to man. — " But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood 
thereof, shall ye not eat." Gen. ix, 4. This prohibition is repeated by 



Chap. 2.] PRIMITIVE SACRIFICES. 347 

Moses to the Israelites with this explanation : " I have given it to you 
upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls." From this 
" additional reason," as it has been called, some have argued that the 
doctrine of the atoning power of blood was then for the first time 
announced by Moses, otherwise the same reason for the prohibition 
would have been given to Noah. 

To this we reply, 1. That unless the same reason be supposed as the 
ground of the prohibition to Noah as that which was given by Moses 
to the Jews, no reason at all can be conceived for this restraint upon 
the appetite of mankind from Noah to Moses. 2. That it is a mistake 
to suppose that Moses assigns any reason for the interdiction of blood 
to the Israelites which is not to be found in the original prohibition to 
Noah. His language is, " For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; 
and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for 
your souls ; for it is the blood (or life) that maketh an atonement for 
the soul." The great reason, then, for the prohibition of blood is, that 
it is the life ; and what follows respecting atonement is exegetical of 
this reason, the life is in the blood, and the blood or life is given as an 
atonement. 

Now, by turning to the original prohibition in Genesis, we find that 
precisely the same reason is given ; and the reason being the same, the 
question is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily 
be understood in the general reason given for the restraint to Noah. 
Blood is prohibited for this reason, that it is the life ; and Moses adds, 
that it is* " the blood," or life, " which makes atonement." We have, 
however, in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and in the sprinkling of 
its blood, a sufficient proof that before the giving of the law blood was 
appropriated to a sacred and sacrificial purpose. But again, the doc- 
trine for which we are contending is supported, 

2. By the history of patriarchal sacrifices. — Here it will be seen that 
the sacrifices of the patriarchs were those of animal victims, and that 
they were offered for the purpose of averting the displeasure of God 
from sinning men. Thus it is evident, from the language of the apostle, 
that the end of Abel's offering was pardon and acceptance with God; 
and by it this end was realized, for " he obtained witness that he was 
righteous." Heb. xi, 4. 

As to the matter of Abel's sacrifice, it was an animal offering. He 
"brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof." And as 
to the peculiar nature of this transaction, the apostle declares that, "By 
faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by 
which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his 
gifts ; and by it he, being dead, yet speaketh." Here the sacred pen- 
man evidently assigns a direct efficacy to the faith of Abel, and to the 
kind of sacrifice, by which that faith was expressed and of which his 
faith was the immediate cause. The faith which he exercised was 



3-±8 THE ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

pleasing to God, and God had respect to his offering because it was 
the proper expression of that faith. That which vitiated the offering 
of Cain was the want of faith ; for " without faith it is impossible to 
please" God. 

But what does the apostle mean when he says that Abel " obtained 
witness that he was righteous ?" Doubtless that he was justified, par- 
doned, and dealt with as righteous. Thus he argues that Abraham 
" believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness " — that 
" faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness " — that " he received 
the sign of circumcision, a seal," a visible, confirmatory, declaratory, 
and witnessing mark " of the righteousness which he had by faith." 
In these two cases we have a similarity so striking that they can 
scarcely fail to explain each other. In both sinful men are placed in 
the condition of righteous men — the instrument, in both cases, is faith; 
and the transaction is, in both cases also, publicly and sensibly witnessed. 
In the case of Abraham it was witnessed by the sign of circumcision ; 
and in that of Abel by a visible acceptance of his sacrifice, while the 
offering of Cain was rejected. 

Now, that which Abel did " by faith " was, if considered generally, 
to perform an act of solemn worship in the confidence that it would be 
acceptable to God. This supposed a revelation, either immediate or by 
tradition, that such acts of worship were acceptable to him; for otherwise 
his faith could have had no warrant, and would not have been faith, but 
mere fancy. It is, therefore, impossible to allow that the act of Abel, 
in this instance, was an act of faith, unless we allow that it had respect 
to a previous revelation which corresponded with all the parts of that 
sacrificial action. Had his sacrifice been merely eucharistic it would 
have expressed gratitude, but not faith ; or, if faith in the general sense 
of confidence in God that he would receive an act of grateful worship 
and reward the worshiper, it could not have been a stronger expression 
of faith than the offering of Cain, who surely believed these two points ; 
for otherwise he would not have brought an offering of any kind. But 
the offering of Abel was evidently expiatory, and, on this account, it 
expressed a faith which Cain had not. It taught the world how guilty 
men were to approach God, and was a declaration of the necessity of 
an atonement for sin. By this act of sacrificial worship, therefore^ "he 
being dead yet speaketh." 

The same, however, is equally true of other acts of patriarchal sacrifice. 
Thus the burnt-offerings of Noah, when he left the ark, served to avert 
the cursing of "the ground any more for man's sake;" that is, for man's 
sin, and the smiting any more of every living thing.* The burnt-offer- 
ings which Job offered for his children, at the close of their festival, 
were evidently to make an atonement for their sins ; for he said, " It may 
be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts."f Thus 
* Gen. viii, 20, 21. \ Job i, 4, 5. 



Chap. 3.] SACRIFICES OF THE LAW. 349 

also, in the case of Eliphaz and his two friends, the prescribed burnt- 
offering was to avert the wrath of God which was kindled against them, 
lest he should deal with them after their folly.* 

We will close this chapter by the adduction of one other text of 
Scripture, which shows most clearly that animal sacrifices among the 
patriarchs were offered for the purpose of averting the Divine dis- 
pleasure, and that this notion of sacrifice was entertained by the 
Israelites previous to the giving of the law. " Let us go, we pray thee, 
three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord our 
God, lest he fall upon us vrith pestilence or with the sword." Exod. v, 3. 
Here Moses and Aaron speak of sacrificing, not as a new and uncom- 
mon thing, but»as a usual mode of worship, with which Pharaoh was as 
well acquainted as themselves. 



CHAPTER III. 

atonement: sacrifices of the law. 

Having shown that the rite of animal sacrifice, as it was observed 
among the patriarchs, was a divinely-appointed institution ; that it was 
based upon the promise of that Great Deliverer, a the Seed of the 
woman;" and that their offerings were expiatory in their character, we 
will proceed, in this chapter, to investigate the subject of atonement in 
the light which is afforded by the sacrifices of the law. This will lead 
us to consider those passages of Scripture in which the writers of the 
New Testament use the sacrificial terms of the Old with reference to 
the work of human redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ. 

The sacrifices of the law were unquestionably of Divine origin ; and 
as terms taken from them are so frequently applied in the New Testa- 
ment to Christ and his sufferings, it is very evident that the apostles 
regarded his death as a sacrifice of expiation — as the sin-offering for 
the world. In order to present the argument in as clear a light as pos- 
sible it will be necessary that we should consider the expiatory nature 
of the Jewish sacrifices, their typical character, and the manner in which 
sacrificial terms and allusions are employed in the New Testament to 
describe the nature and effect of the death of Christ. 

I. The Levitical Sacrifices were expiatory. 

It is not necessary to prove that all the Levitical offerings were of this 
character. It is enough to show that the grand and eminent sacrifices 
of the Jews were strictly expiatory, and that by them the offerers were 
released from punishment and death. 

* Job xlii, 1,8. 



350 ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

When we speak of vicarious sacrifices we do not mean either, on the 
one hand, a substitution which requires the victim to bear the same 
quantum of pain and suffering that the offender deserves, or, on the 
other, that the victim is put in the place of the offender as a mere sym- 
bolical act by which he confesses his desert of punishment ; but a sub- 
stitution made by Divine appointment, by which the victim is exposed 
to suffering and death instead of the offender, in virtue of which the 
offender himself is released. That the sacrifices of the law were thus 
vicarious and expiatory admits of abundant proof. This is established, 

1. By the general appointment of blood to be an atonement for the 
soul. — Here we need do little more than refer to Lev. xvii, 10, 11: "I 
will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut 
him off from among the people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; 
and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for 
your souls ; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." 
Here, to make an atonement for the soul is the same as to give a ransom 
for the soul, as will appear by a reference to Exod. xxx, 12 ; and to 
give a ransom for the soul is to avert death. ' " Then shall they give 
every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, that there be no plague 
among them," by which their life might be suddenly taken away. 
The soul is also here obviously used for the life. The blood, or the life 
of the victims, in all the sacrifices, was substituted for the life of man to 
preserve him from death, and the victims were therefore vicarious. 
This view of the subject is proved, 

2. By particular instances. — Let us refer to Lev. v, 15, 16: "If a 
soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of 
the Lord, he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the 
holy things, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the 
priest." Here is the proper fine for the trespass ; but then it is added, 
" he shall bring, for his trespass unto the Lord, a ram without blemish, 
and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the 
trespass-offering, and it shall be forgiven him." Thus, then, so far was 
the sacrifice from being a mere fne, as some have supposed, that the 
fine is distinguished from it ; for with the ram only was the atonement 
made for the trespass. 

Nor can the ceremonies with which the trespass and sin-offerings 
were accompanied agree with any notion but that of their vicarious 
character. The worshiper, conscious of his trespass, brought an animal, 
his own property, to the door of the tabernacle. He laid his hands upon 
its head, the symbolical act in the transfer of punishment, then slew it 
with his own hand and delivered it to the priest, who burnt the fat and 
part of the animal upon the altar ; and having sprinkled part of the 
blood upon the altar, and, in some cases, upon the offerer himself, he 
poured the rest at the bottom of the altar. It is clearly made manifest 
by these actions, and by the description of their nature and end, that 



Cliap. 3.] SACRIFICES OF THE LAW. 351 

the animal bore the punishment of the offender, and that by this 
appointment he was reconciled to God and obtained the forgiveness of 
his offenses. But in proof that the life of animal sacrifices was accepted 
in place of the life of man, we may observe, 

3. That the law required a sacrificial atonement even for bodily dis- 
orders. — All such unclean persons were liable to death, and were 
exempted from it only by animal sacrifices. This appears from the con- 
clusion of the Levitical directions concerning the ceremonial which was 
to be followed in all cases : " Thus shall ye separate the children of 
Israel from their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is 
among them." Lev. xv, 31. So, then, by virtue of sin-offerings the 
children of Israel were saved from a death which otherwise they would 
have suffered for their uncleanness, and that by substituting the life of 
the animal for that of the offerer. As a further proof of the vicarious 
character of the principal sacrifices of the Mosaic economy, we may 
instance, 

4. Those which were statedly offered for the ichole congregation.— 
Two lambs were offered every day, one in the morning and the other in 
the evening, " for a continual burnt-offering." To these daily victims 
were added, weekly, two other lambs for the burnt-offering of the Sab- 
bath. None of these could be considered in the light of fines for offenses, 
since they were offered for the whole congregation and not for particu- 
lar persons. They must therefore be regarded, unless they are resolved 
into an unmeaning ceremony, as piacular and vicarious. 

Passing over, however, the monthly sacrifices, and such as were 
offered at the great feasts, we will advert to those which were offered on 
the solemn anniversary of expiation, "to make an atonement for the chil- 
dren of Israel for all their sins." On this day of general expiation two 
goats were selected as a sin-offering for the people ; one of them to be 
killed, and the other to be " presented alive before the Lord," as the 
" scape-goat." The high-priest was commanded to offer a bullock for 
himself, and to " take of the blood, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat;" 
to " kill the goat of the sin-offering for the people, and to do with that 
blood as he did with the blood of the bullock ; to lay both his hands 
upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities 
of the children of Israel ;" and to send the animal, thus bearing the 
sins of the people, away into the wilderness. Hence we see, by an 
action which cannot be misunderstood, that the atonement which was 
effected by the sin-offering consisted in removing from the people their 
iniquities by transferring them to the animal. We find another most 
explicit illustration of this doctrine, 

5. In the sacrifice of the passover.* — This celebrated feast was insti- 
tuted in commemoration of the deliverance of the Israelites, when the 
angel smote the first-born of Egypt, and clearly shows that the life of 

* See Exod. xii. 



352 ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

the sinner was preserved by the death of the victim. The lamb was 
slain, and its blood sprinkled npon the posts of the doors ; and wherever 
the blood was sprinkled the destroying angel passed over and spared 
the life of all within the house. Thus, by the blood of the slain lamb 
was human life preserved. 

The chief objections made to the doctrine that the Levitical sacrifices 
were expiatory are, first, that under the law, in all capital cases, the 
offender, upon legal conviction, was doomed to die, and no sacrifice 
could exempt him from the penalty. Secondly, that in all lower cases, 
to which the law had not attached capital punishment, the penalty was 
to be regarded in the light of a pecuniary fine. 

Much of this may be granted without any prejudice to the argument. 
The law under which the Jews were placed was at once as to them 
both a moral and a political law. For the order and benefit of society 
the Lawgiver required that blasphemy, idolatry, murder, and adultery 
should be punished with temporal death ; and because this was the 
state penalty, he would accept no atonement for such transgressions. 
But running parallel with this political application of the law to the 
Jews as subjects of the theocracy, we see the authority of the moral law 
kept over them as moral creatures ; and while a few of the more " pre- 
sumptuous sins" were the only capital crimes considered politically, 
every transgression of the law was a capital crime considered morally, 
and would have subjected the offender to death but for this provision 
of expiatory obligations. The true question then is, whether such sac- 
rifices were appointed by God, and accepted instead of the life of the 
offender, which otherwise would have been forfeited as in other cases ; 
and if the life of animal sacrifices was accepted instead of the life of 
man, then the notion that they were pecuniary fines or penalties falls to 
the ground, and the vicarious nature of most of the Levitical oblations 
is established. 

II. The Levitical Saceifices were also Types of a better Sac- 
rifice. 

A type, in a theological sense, is a sign or example prepared and 
designed by God to prefigure some future person or thing. It is 
required that it should represent this future object with more or less 
clearness, either by something which it has in common with the anti- 
type, or in being the symbol of some property which it possesses ; that 
it should be prepared and designed by God thus to represent its anti- 
type, which circumstance distinguishes it from a simile and from a hiero- 
glyphic ; that it should give place to the antitype as soon as the latter 
appears ; and that the efficacy of the antitype should exist in the type in 
appearance only, or in a lower degree. 

The typical character of the Levitical dispensation and of many events 
in the Mosaic history, is clearly taught in the New Testament. Thus 
St. Paul calls the meats and drinks, the holy days and new moons, and 



Chap. 3.] SACRIFICES OF THE LAW. 353 

the sabbaths of the Jews, including in them the services performed in the 
celebration of these festivals, " a shadow of things to come ;" the 
" body " of which shadow, whose form the shadow generally and faintly 
exhibited, "is Christ."* Again, he declares that the Israelites all 
"drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was 
Christ." And when speaking, in the same connection, of things which 
happened to them in the wilderness, he calls them " ensamples (tvttoi) 
written for our admonition."! 

In Hebrews x, 1, the apostle, when discoursing expressly upon the 
sacrifices of the tabernacle, calls them the "shadow (aiclav) of good 
things to come," and places them in contrast with " the very image of 
.the things " referred to. Now whether we take the word uklcl for the 
shadow of the body of man, or for a faint delineation or sketch, to be 
succeeded by a finished picture, it is clear that whatever the law was, 
it was by Divine appointment. And as there is a relation between the 
shadow and the body which produces it, and between the sketch or outline 
and the finished picture, so if, by Divine appointment, the law was this 
shadow of good things to come, which is what the apostle asserts, there 
was then an intended and typical relation of the former to the latter. 

Of this appointment and designation of the tabernacle service to be a 
shadow of good things to come, the ninth chapter of Hebrews affords 
several direct and unequivocal declarations. So verse 7, 8 : " But into 
the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without 
blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people ; the 
Holt Ghost thus signifying {showing, declaring by this type) that the 
way into the holiest of all was not yet macTe manifest." Here we have 
the declaration of a doctrine by type, which is referred to the design 
and intention of the Holy Ghost himself at the time when the Levitical 
ritual was prescribed, and this typical declaration was to continue until 
the new dispensation should be introduced. In verse 9 the tabernacle 
itself is called a figure or parable ? " Which was a figure {r:aoa^o>Jq) 
for the time then present." It was a parable by which the evangelical 
and spiritual doctrines were taught. It was an appointed parable, 
because it was limited to a certain time ; u for the time then present" 
that is, until the bringing in of the things signified, to which it had this 
designed relation. Again, verse 23, the things under the law are called 
u patterns (imodeLyfiara, typical representations) of things in the heav- 
ens ;" and in verse 24, " the holy places made with hands " are denomi- 
nated " the figures of the true." 

The sacrificial ceremonies, then, of the Levitical institute are clearly 
established to be typical, and to have all the characters of a type in the 
theological sense. They are represented by St. Paul, in the passages 
which have been under consideration, as adumbrative, as divinely 
designed and appointed to be so, as having respect to things future, to 
*CoLii,17. f 1 Cor. x. 4, 11. 

23 



354 atonement. [Book IV. 

Christ and to his sacerdotal ministry, and as being inferior in efficacy to 
the antitypes which correspond to them ; and they were all displaced 
by their antitypes, the Levitical ceremonies being repealed by the death 
and ascension of our Lord. 

Having shown that the writers of the New Testament regarded the 
Jewish sacrifices as being both expiatory and typical, we will proceed 
to consider, 

III. The manner in which they employ sacrificial terms and 
allusions to describe the nature and effect of the death of 
Christ. 

He is called " the Lamb of God ;" not with reference to his meek- 
ness, or any other moral virtue ; but with an accompanying phrase 
which would communicate to a Jew the full sacrificial sense of the terms 
employed : " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the 
world." He is called " our passover sacrificed for us." He is said 
to have given " himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for 
a sweet-smelling savor ;" and to have " put away sin by the sacrifice 
of himself." To these and many other similar expressions and allu- 
sions we may add the argument of St. Paul in his epistle to the 
Hebrews ; in which, by proving at length that the sacrifice of Christ 
was superior in efficacy to those of the law, he most unequivocally 
assumes that it was a sacrifice for sin. For if it had no sacrificial char- 
acter it would no more have been capable • of comparison with the 
Jewish sacrifices than the death of John the Baptist, or of any other 
martyr for the truth. 

Now, as the offering of the animal sacrifices took away sin, that is, 
obtained remission for offenses against the law, we can be at no loss to 
know what the Baptist meant when he exclaimed, " Behold the Lamb 
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!" As there was a trans- 
fer of suffering and death from the offender to the legally clean and 
sound victim, so Christ died, "the just for the unjust." As the animal 
sacrifices were expiatory, so Christ is our iXaoiioe, propitiation or expia- 
tion ; and as by the Levitical oblations men were reconciled to God, so 
we, when enemies, " were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." 
As under the law there was no remission without the shedding of blood, 
so as to Christ we are "justified by his blood," and "have redemption 
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." As by the blood of the 
appointed sacrifices "the holy places made with hands" were made 
accessible to the Jewish worshipers, that blood being carried into them 
and sprinkled by the high-priest; so Christ, "by his own blood, entered 
into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us," and hav- 
ing thu$ opened up for us a " new and living way " into the celestial 
sanctuary. As the blood of the Mosaic oblations was the blood of the 
Old Testament, so Christ calls his blood the " blood of the New Testa- 
ment, shed for the remission of sins." And as it was a part of the sac- 



Chap. 3.] SACRIFICES OF THE LAW. 355 

rificial solemnity, in some instances at least, to feast upon the offered 
victim, so with direct reference to this our Lord declared, " Whoso eat- 
eth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life ; for my flesh is 
meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed ;" that is, my flesh and blood 
are in truth and reality what the flesh and blood of the Jewish victims 
were in type. 

St. Paul, in concluding a discourse upon our reconciliation to God, 
lays it down as the general principle upon which that reconciliation is to 
be explained and enforced, that Christ, "who knew no sin," was "made 
to be sin for us ; that we might be made the righteousness of God 
in him." 2 Cor. v, 21. Here, then, the question is, In what sense was 
Christ made sin for us ? Not, certainly, as to the guilt of it, for he 
" knew no sin ;" but as to the expiation of it by his personal sufferings, 
by which he delivers the guilty from punishment. He was, therefore, 
made a sin-offering for us. 

Again, " Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an 
offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor." Eph. v, 2. 
Here the object of the apostle is, in the first place, to impress the Ephe- 
sians with a deep sense of the love of Christ. He " hath loved us, and 
hath given himself for us." He then explains the mode in which Christ 
gave himself for us, that is, by suffering in our room and stead. He 
was made " an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling 
savor." Thus the apostle applies to the sacrificial death of our Lord 
the very terms which are applied to the Jewish sacrifices. 

The Socinian pretense is, that the inspired penman used the sacrificial 
terms which occur in their writings in a figurative sense. We reply, 
however, that they could not do this honestly without giving notice of 
this new application of the established terms of Jewish theology. But 
the apostles have given us no intimation that they applied these terms to 
the death of Christ in any strange or altered sense. We must therefore 
conclude that, as honest men, they must have employed them in their 
true sacrificial import ; and, consequently, that they intended to repre- 
sent the death of our Lord as a sacrifice for sin. If this was not their 
intention, nothing could be more misleading than their employment of 
those terms and phrases in connection with that event ; because such 
would be the natural and necessary inference from the terms themselves, 
which had acquired this as their established meaning. 

If we assume that the sacred writers used these sacrificial terms and 
allusions, as applied to Christ, in a figurative sense, then it will neces- 
sarily follow that their writings leave us wholly at a loss to discover 
what they really intended to teach by them. As to this they are them- 
selves utterly silent ; and the varying theories of those who reject the 
doctrine of atonement afford no solution of the difficulty. If, therefore, 
it is blasphemous to suppose, on the one hand, that inspired men should 
write on purpose to mislead, so, on the other, it is utterly inconceivable, 



356 ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

had they been only ordinary writers, that they should construct a fig- 
urative language out of terms which had a definite and established 
sense, without giving any intimation that they employed them other- 
wise than in their received meaning ; and more especially when they 
knew that they must be interpreted, both by Jews and Greeks, in a 
sense which, if the Socinians are right, is in direct opposition to what 
they intended to convey. 

We conclude, therefore, that the sacrificial terms, which the inspired 
writers apply to the death of Christ, are used properly and must be 
understood literally. For, what was an expiatory sacrifice under the 
law but the offering of the life of an innocent creature in the place of 
the guilty, and that in order to obtain for the latter exemption from 
death ? And was not the death of Christ as literally an offering of him- 
self, " the just for the unjust," that " we might not perish ?" The legal 
sin-offerings cleansed the body, and qualified men for the ceremonial 
worship prescribed by the law ; and the blood of Christ as truly purifies 
the conscience, and consecrates men to that spiritual service which the 
Gospel requires. Indeed, "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
once for all" is the only true sacrifice, of which the Levitical sacrifices 
were but the appointed types, and by which they are to be interpreted. 



CHAPTER IV. 

atonement: death of cheist peopitiatoey. 

From what has been said in regard to the patriarchal and the Jewish 
sacrifices we pass to consider the doctrine of atonement as it is set forth 
in the Scriptures of the New Testament, and to establish the propitiatory 
character of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the prosecution of 
our design we will endeavor to prove that our salvation is everywhere 
ascribed to this grand event, that his death was necessary to our sal- 
vation, and that he died in our room and stead as a proper substitute 
for us. 

I. Our salvation is everywhere ascribed to the death of 
Christ. 

This fact must be evident even to the most superficial reader of the 
New Testament. Christ himself declares, " I lay down my life for the 
sheep." St. Paul tells us that he " gave himself for us ;" that " Christ 
was once offered to bear the sins of many ;" and that " while we were 
yet sinners Christ died for us." So also the song of the redeemed in 
heaven is, " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his 



Chap. 4.] DEATH OF CHRIST PROPITIATORY. 357 

own blood" In these and many other passages the entire salvation of 
man is clearly ascribed to the sacrificial death of our Lord. 

This doctrine of the holy Scriptures must, in some way or other, be 
accounted for and explained. The Socinian attempts to account for it 
by making the death of Christ the means by which repentance is pro- 
duced in man, so as to make it morally fit that he should be forgiven. 
The modern Arian connects with this notion that kind of merit in the 
death of Christ which arises from a generous and benevolent self-devo- 
tion ; and which, when pleaded by him in the way of mediation, God is 
pleased to honor, by accepting true repentance in place of perfect obe- 
dience. But to prove the falsity of both these theories it is only 
requisite to show, 

II. That the death of Christ was necessary to man's salva- 
tion. 

This principle is wholly excluded both by the Socinian and the Arian 
hypotheses. By the former, the reason for pardon is placed in repent- 
ance alone ; by the latter, in the right which God has to pardon the pen- 
itent, but which he chooses to exercise in honor of the philanthropy of 
Jesus Christ. Both make the death of Christ, though in a different 
way and in a very subordinate sense, the means of obtaining forgive- 
ness, because it is the means of bringing men into that state in which 
they are fit objects of pardon. But the Scripture doctrine is, that the 
death of Christ is not merely the meritorious means, but the meritorious 
cause of the exercise of pardon ; and that repentance is only one of the 
instrumental means of actually obtaining it. In accordance with this 
view the Scriptures speak of the death of Christ, not as one of many 
means by which the same end might have been accomplished, but as 
necessary, in the strictest sense, to the salvation of man. This has been 
considered, even by some divines professing orthodoxy, to be a bold 
position ; but its truthfulness may be argued, 

1. From the Divine character of our Lord. — It follows, of course, 
from the Socinian or the Arian hypothesis, that if he were a created 
being, and if he were the mere messenger of a mercy which might be 
exercised on prerogative, and not the procuring cause of it, any other 
creature might have accomplished the work which he came to perform. 
But when it is admitted that Christ is the Divine Son of God ; that he 
was " God manifest in the flesh ;" that the forgiveness of sin required a 
satisfaction to Divine justice of no less value than the sufferings and 
death of the incarnate Deity ; even from such premises alone it would 
seem necessarily to follow that sin could not have been forgiven but for 
the interposition of Christ, unless some other sacrifice of equal merit 
could have been found. But if no such being existed out of the God- 
head, ' then human hope rested solely on the voluntary incarnation 
of the Son of God, and the overwhelming fact and mystery of his 
becoming flesh in order to suffer for us shows that the case to be reme- 



358 ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

died was one of a character absolutely extreme, and, therefore, not 
otherwise remediable. But this matter is put beyond all reasonable 
doubt, 

2. By the testimoiiy of Scripture. — " From that time forth began 
Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem 
and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and 
be killed, and be raised again the third day." Matt, xvi, 21. "Thus it 
is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead 
the third day." Luke xxiv, 46. Here a necessity for the death of Christ 
is plainly expressed. If it be said that this event was necessary in 
order to the fulfillment of prophecy, it is only to be remembered that 
what was predicted on this subject arose out of a previous appointment 
of God, in whose eternal counsel Christ had been designated as the 
Redeemer of man. The necessity of this death, then, rested on Divine 
appointment, and that on the necessity of the case ; and if it was neces- 
sary for him to die in order that we might live, then we live only in 
consequence of his death. 

The same view is conveyed in a strongly figurative passage from the 
teachings of our Lord. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn 
of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone ; but if it die, it 
bringeth forth much fruit." John xii, 24. From this it inevitably fol- 
lows, that the death of Christ was as necessary to human salvation as 
is that change in the sown wheat which is here called dying in order to 
the production of the harvest. It was so necessary that without it man 
could not have been saved. Had Christ not died he would have 
remained " alone," and have brought " no sons to glory." Moreover, 
the Scriptures teach the doctrine, 

III. That Christ died in our room and stead, or, as a proper 

SUBSTITUTE FOR US. 

The Socinian scheme makes the death of Christ only an incidental 
benefit, as sealing the truth of his doctrine, and setting an example of 
eminent passive virtue. In this sense they acknowledge that he died 
for men, because in this indirect manner they derive from his death the 
benefit of instruction, and because some of the motives to virtue are 
thereby placed in a stronger light. 

The modern Arian scheme, sometimes called the intercession hypoth- 
esis, acknowledges that our Lord acquired by his disinterested and 
generous sufferings the highest degree of virtue and a powerful interest 
with God, on account of which his intercession on behalf of penitent 
sinners is honored by an exercise of higher mercy than would otherwise 
have taken place. But it by no means follows from this that repent- 
ance might not otherwise have taken place, and that mercy might not 
otherwise have been exercised. According to this view, then, Christ 
died for the benefit of men somewhat more directly than on the Socinian 
scheme ; but he did not die in their room and stead. His death was 






Chap. 4.] DEATH OF CHRIST PROPITIATORY. 359 

not vicarious, and it is not on that account directly that the guilty are 
absolved from condemnation. 

To prove, however, that the death of Christ was vicarious, that he 
died as a proper substitute for us and in our room and stead, the testi- 
mony of the sacred writers must be adduced. This doctrine may be 
argued, 

1. From all those passages which declare that he died foe men. — 
Christ asserts that he came "to give his life a ransom for many." 
Matt, xx, 28. St. Paul tells us that " Christ died for the ungodly," 
Rom. v, 6 ; that " he died for all," 2 Cor. v, 15 ; that he " gave himself 
a ransom for all," 1 Tim. ii, 6 ; and that he tasted " death for every 
man," Heb. ii, 9. St. Peter declares that he died, " the just for the 
unjust," and that " he suffered for us." 

To this argument it has been objected that the Greek prepositions 
vrt&Q and avri, which are rendered for in the above quotations, do not 
always signify substitution, but are sometimes to be rendered on account 
of; as when it is said that " Christ died for our sins," which cannot 
mean instead of our sins. All this may be granted, but it is neverthe- 
less certain that there are numerous texts of Scripture in which these 
particles can only be interpreted when taken to mean " instead of," or 
"in the place of." When Caiaphas said, (John xi, 50,) " It is expedient 
that one man should die (vnep) for the people, and that the whole 
nation perish not," he plainly taught that either Christ or the nation 
must perish ; and that to put the former to death would be to cause 
him to perish instead of the latter. In Rom. v, 6-8, the sense in which 
" Christ dies for us " is indubitably fixed by the context. " For scarcely 
for a righteous man will one die, yet peradventure for a good man some 
would even dare to die ; but .God commendeth his love toward us in 
that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." But who can 
imagine that any one would die for a good man unless it were to redeem 
his life by giving up his own ? 

In this sense, also, avri is used by the LXX, 2 Sam. xviii, 33, where 
David says concerning Absalom, " would God I had died {avri gov) for 
thee." Here he evidently expresses the wish that he had died instead 
of his son. In this sense, too, avri is frequently used in the New Testa- 
ment; as, "Archelaus did reign in Judea (avri) in the room of his 
father Herod." Matt, ii, 22. " If he ask a fish, will he (avri) for a fish," 
in place or instead of a fish, " give him a serpent ?" Luke xi, 11. When, 
therefore, the same preposition is employed, (Mark x, 45,) " The Son of 
man came to give his life a ransom (avri) for many," there can surely 
be no reason drawn from the meaning of the preposition itself to pre- 
vent its being understood in the sense of substitution. But, that Christ 
died for us directly as a substitute is fully proved, 

2. JBy those Scriptures in which he is said to have borne the punish- 
ment due to our offenses. — It is thus that he is said to have borne our 



360 atonement. [Book IV. 

sins. " Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." 
1 Pet. ii, 24. Here the apostle evidently quotes from Isa. liii, 11, 12 : " He 
shall bear their iniquities," — " he bare the sin of many." The same ex- 
pression is used by St. Paul, Heb. ix, 28 : " So Christ was once offered to 
bear the sins of many." Now, to bear sin is, in the language of Scrip- 
ture, to bear the punishment of sin ;* and the use of the compound verb 
avcxpepG) by both the apostles is worthy of notice. St. Peter might 
have said, simply, rjveytce, he bore; but wishing at the same time to sig- 
nify the manner in which Christ bore our sins, he said, avrjveyne, he bore 
up, meaning, he bore by going up to the cross. St. Paul, too, uses the 
same verb both with reference to the Levitical sacrifices, which were 
carried to an elevated altar, and to the sacrifice of Christ. It is also 
decisive as to the sense in which St. Peter uses the phrase, to bare sin\ 
that he quotes from Isa. liii, 11, "He shall bear their iniquities ;" where 
the Hebrew word ^SD means, to bear or sustain a burden, and is evi- 
dently employed in the sense of bearing the punishment of sin. This 
may be seen in Lam. v, 7 : " Our fathers have sinned, and are not ; and 
(iai>SD) we have borne their iniquities" 

Similar to this expression of bearing sins is the declaration of Isaiah 
in the same chapter : " He was wounded for our transgressions, he was 
bruised for our iniquities ;" and then, to show in what sense he was 
wounded and bruised for us, the prophet adds, " the chastisement of 
our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Now, 
chastisement is the punishment of a fault ; but the sufferer of whom the 
prophet speaks is wholly free from transgression. He is perfectly and 
emphatically innocent. This prophecy is applied to Christ by the apos- 
tles, whose constant doctrine is the entire immaculateness of their Lord. 
If " chastisement," therefore, was laid upon him, it could not have been 
on account of his own faults. His sufferings were the chastisement of 
our faults, the price of our peace ; and his a stripes," another punitive 
expression, were borne by him that we might be " healed." These pas- 
sages, therefore, prove a substitution — a suffering in Our stead. 

The same view is presented to us under another and even still more 
forcible phrase in the sixth and the seventh verse of the same chapter : 
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his 
own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was 
oppressed, and he was afflicted." Bishop Lowth translates this passage, 
" and Jehovah hath made to light upon him the iniquity of us all ; it 
was exacted, and he was made answerable." 

In 2 Cor. v, 21, the apostle uses almost the same language : "For he 
hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we might be 
made the righteousness of God in him." Here St. Paul places " sin " 
and "righteousness" in opposition to each other. We are 'fmade the 
righteousness of God," that is, we are justified and freed from the pen- 
* See Lev. xxii, 9 ; Ezek. xviii, 20. 



Chap. 4.] DEATH OF CHRIST PROPITIATORY. 361 

alty of the law ; but, in order to this, Christ was " made sin for us," or 
bore our punishment. There is another antithesis in the apostle's words. 
God made him who knew no sin, and consequently deserved no punish- 
ment, to be sin for us, who are really guilty ; that is, it pleased the 
Father that the innocent Redeemer should suffer for guilty man. The 
antithesis, therefore, requires us to understand that Christ bore the 
penalty of the law in our room and stead. 

That the death of Christ was penal, which implies that he took our 
place and suffered in our stead, is evident also from Gal. iii, 13: " Christ 
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; 
for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Here the 
apostle, in order to prove that Christ was made obnoxious to penal suf- 
fering, cites the language of Moses, who expressly assents that he who 
is hanged on a tree, according to the Divine law, " is accursed of God."* 
Consequently, in the words of the apostle, who quotes the language of 
Moses and refers it to Christ, we must supply the same circumstance, 
"accursed of God." .The meaning, then, is, that Christ was made 
"accursed of God;" or, in other words, was made obnoxious to the 
highest and most ignominious punishment "for us." But the vica- 
rious and sacrificial character of the death of Christ is still further estab- 
lished, 

3. By those Scriptures which connect icith it propitiation, redemption, 
reconciliation, and the making of peace between God and man. — The 
Scriptures represent the death of our Lord, 

(1.) As a propitiation. — To propitiate is to appease, to atone, to turn 
away the wrath of an offended person. In the case before us the wrath 
turned away is the wrath of God, the person making the propitiation 
is Christ, and the propitiatory sacrifice is his blood. All this is 
expressed, in most explicit terms, in the following passages : " Whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." 
Rom. iii, 25. " He is the propitiation for our sins." 1 John ii, 2. " God 
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John iv, 10. The 
word which is rendered propitiation in the first passage is lXclottiqiov, 
in the two latter, t^ao/iog. Both are from the verb IXacKG), a word often 
used by Greek writers to express the action of a person who, in 
some appointed way, turned aside the wrath of a deity. It cannot, 
therefore, bear the sense which Socinus would put upon it,. " the destruc- 
tion of sin ;" which is not supported by a single example. 

Modern Socinians have conceded, in their note on 1 John ii, 2, in their 
Improved Version, that tXaa^og means "the pacifying of an offended 
party;" but they subjoin that Christ is a propitiation, because "by his 
Gospel he brings sinners to repentance, and thus averts the Divine dis- 
pleasure." The concession is important, but the comment is absurd ; 
for in this sense Moses, or any of the apostles, or any minister of the 

* Deut xxi, 22, 23. 



362 ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

Gospel who succeeds in bringing sinners to repentance, is as truly a pro- 
pitiation for sin as Christ himself. 

The authors of the Improved Version translate iXaorrjpiov, in Rem. 
iii, 25, by the phrase " mercy-seat" supposing that this rendering 
removes that countenance to the doctrine of atonement by vicarious suf- 
fering which the common translation affords. It is true iXacm]piov is 
used in the Septuagint Version, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to 
denote the mercy-seat or covering of the ark; but so little is to be 
gained by taking the word in this sense in the passage before us that 
this rendering is adopted by several orthodox commentators as express- 
ing, in a very emphatic manner, by supplying a type to the antitype, the* 
doctrine of our Lord's atonement. 

The mercy -seat was so called because, under the Old Testament dis- 
pensation, it was the place where the high-priest on the feast of expia- 
tion sprinkled the blood of the sin-offerings, in order to make an atone- 
ment for himself and the whole congregation ; and since God accepted 
the offering which was then made, it is for this, reason accounted the 
medium through which he showed himself propitious to the people. 
With reference to this Jesus Christ may be fitly called a mercy-seat, as 
being the person through whom God shows himself propitious to man- 
kind. And as under the law God was propitious to those who came 
to him by appearing before his mercy-seat with the blood of their sin- 
offerings, so, under the Gospel dispensation, he is propitious to those 
who come to him through faith in that blood which Jesus shed for the 
remission of sins. The text, therefore, points us to the Hood of Christ 
as the only means of obtaining mercy. " Without shedding of blood is 
no remission." Heb. ix, 22. 

Socinians, in the hope of proving that propitiation in the proper sense 
cannot be the doctrine of the Scriptures, deny the existence of wrath in 
God. In order to give plausibility to their statement they pervert and 
caricature the orthodox opinion, and argue, as though it formed a part 
of the doctrine of Christ's propitiation for sin, that God is naturally an 
implacable and vengeful being, and only disposed to show mercy by 
satisfaction being made to his displeasure through our Lord's sufferings 
and death. This is as contrary to Scripture as it is to the opinion of all 
sober persons who hold the doctrine of Christ's atonement. God is 
love; but it is not necessary in order to support this truth to assume 
that he is nothing else. He has, as we have seen, other attributes 
which harmonize with this and with each other ; though, assuredly, 
that harmony cannot be exhibited by any who deny the propitiation for 
sin made by the death of Christ. Their system, therefore, obliges them 
to deny the existence of some of the attributes of God, or to explain 
them away. 

The question is not whether God is love, or whether he is of a placa- 
ble nature, for in this we are agreed ; but we are to inquire whether 



Chap. 4.] DEATH OF CHRIST PROPITIATORY. 363 

God is holy and just; whether we, his creatures, are under law ; 
whether this law has any penalty ; and whether God in his rectoral 
character is bound to execute that law. These are points which have 
already been established ; and as the justice of God is punitive, then is 
there wrath in God ; then is God angry with the wicked ; then is man, 
as a sinner, obnoxious to this anger ; and so a propitiation becomes 
necessary to turn it away from him. 

Nor is it unscriptural to ascribe wrath to God. John the Baptist 
declares that " the wrath of God abideth on him " who " believeth not 
the Son ;" and St. Paul, that " the wrath of God is revealed from 
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." So the 
day of judgment is, with reference to the ungodly, called " the day of 
wrath." It is evident, then, that to deny the existence of wrath in God 
is to deny the Scriptures. In holding this doctrine, however, we do 
not ascribe to the Divine Being vengeful affections. We only mean by 
the " wrath of God " that awful attribute of his justice which requires 
the punishment of the guilty, or satisfaction in order to their forgive- 
ness. To the passages in which Christ is called a propitiation we 
add, 

(2.) Those which ascribe to him our redemption, either by employ- 
ing that word itself or others of the same import. " Being justified 
freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." 
Rom. iii, 24. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us." Gal. iii, 13. "In whom we have redemp- 
tion through his blood." Eph. i, 1. " Ye were not redeemed with cor- 
ruptible things, as silver and gold, . . . but with the precious blood of 
Christ." 1 Peter i, 18, 19. "And ye are not your own, for ye are 
bought with a price." 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20. 

By redemption, those who deny the atonement made by Christ wish 
to understand deliverance merely, regarding only the effect, and studi- 
ously putting out of sight the cause from which it flows. But the very 
terms used in the above cited passages, to " redeem" and to be " bought 
with a price," will be found to refute the notion of a gratuitous deliver- 
ance, whether from sin or punishment, or both. 

Our English word redeem literally means to buy back ; and Xvrgooj, to 
redeem, and aTToXvrgwaic, redemption, are, both by ancient Greek writers 
and in the New Testament, used for the act of setting, free a captive by 
paying Xvrgov, a ransom or redemption price. They signify, moreover, 
deliverance from exile, death, and every other evil from which we may 
be freed ; and Xvrgov signifies whatever satisfies another so as to effect 
this deliverance. 

The nature of this redemption or purchased deliverance is therefore to 
be ascertained by the circumstances of those who are the subjects of it. 
In the case before us the subjects are sinful men. They are under guilt, 
under " the curse of the law," under the power and dominion of the 



364 atonement. [Book IV. 

devil, liable to death of the body and to death eternal. To the whole 
of this case the purchased deliverance of man as proclaimed in the Gos- 
pel applies itself. Hence, in opposition to guilt, we are "justified 
freely through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." We have 
redemption " from the curse of the law," through him who was " made 
a curse for us;" from the power of Satan, by him who came "to 
destroy the works of the devil ;" from death, by a resurrection ; and 
from future wrath, by the gift of eternal life. 

Throughout the whole of this glorious scheme of human redemption, 
as taught in the New Testament, there is a constant reference to the 
Xvrgov, the redemption price, which is as constantly declared to be the 
death of Christ, which he endured in our stead. He gave "his life a 
ransom (Xvrgov) for many." " We have redemption (rnv anoXvrgo)Gtv) 
through his blood" He " gave himself a ransom (avrtXvrgov) for all." 
Our redemption by Christ is not, therefore, a gratuitous deliverance 
granted without consideration, as an act of mere prerogative; the 
redemption price was exacted and paid; one thing was given for 
another — the precious blood of Christ for captive and condemned 
men. 

Of the same import are those passages which represent us as being 
" bought" or purchased by Christ. St. Peter speaks of those who 
denied " the Lord that bought them." St. Paul says, " Ye are bought 
with a price ;" which price is expressly said by St. John (Rev. v, 9) to 
be the blood of Christ : " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to 
God by thy blood" But we may add, 

(3.) That the Scriptures speak of reconciliation and the establishment 
of peace between God and man as the design and direct effect of Christ's 
death. — Thus : " We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son," 
Rom. v, 10. God "hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ." 
2 Cor. v, 18. " Having made peace through the blood of his cross, by 
him to reconcile all things unto himself." Col. i, 20. "That he might 
reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the 
enmity thereby." Eph. ii, 16. The verbs icaraXXaoaoj and arroKaraX- 
Xaooo), translated to reconcile, denote a change from one state to 
another ; but in these passages they signify a change from enmity to 
friendship — a reconciliation. In Romans v, 11, the noun KaraXXayrj is 
rendered atonement ; but it is contended that it ought to have been ren- 
dered reconciliation, unless we take the word atonement in the sense of 
being at one, which is its primitive meaning. It was surely not in this 
sense, however, that the word was used by our translators, but in that 
of propitiation, in its proper and sacrificial import. But to render 
KaraXXayrj reconciliation is most agreeable to the context ; for in the 
preceding verse it is said that "we were reconciled to God by the 
death of his Son," which death, as we have seen, is in other pas- 
sages of Scripture called a "propitiation." The reconciliation, there* 



Chap. 4.] DEATH OF CHRIST PEOPITIATORY. 365 

fore, of which the apostle speaks is only through the sacrificial death 
of Christ. 

The expressions " reconciliation " and " making peace," necessarily 
imply a previous state of mutual hostility between God and man. This 
is sometimes called enmity, a term which is rather inappropriate as it 
respects God, since it is almost exclusively employed to signify a 
malignant and revengeful feeling. Hence some have argued that as 
there can be no such affection in the Divine nature, therefore reconcil- 
iation in Scripture does not mean the reconciliation of God to man, but 
only of man to God. It is, indeed, a sad and humbling truth, that 
human nature is malignantly hostile to God, and to the control of his 
law ; but this is far from expressing the whole of that relation of man 
to God which requires a reconciliation. The relation is a legal one ; 
for God is to be regarded as a sovereign in his judicial capacity, and 
man as a criminal who has violated his law and who is therefore treated 
as an enemy. It is this judicial variance and opposition between God 
and man which is referred to in the term " reconciliation," and in the 
phrase " making peace ;" and the hostility is, therefore, in its own nature 
mutual. 

Hence it follows that reconciliation means more than the laying aside 
of our enmity to God. This is evident from Rom. v, 10, where the 
apostle shows that "when we were enemies we were reconciled to 
God by the death of his Son," that is, when we were objects of Divine 
judicial displeasure, accounted as enemies, and liable to be treated as 
such. 

Again, " God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not 
imputing their trespasses unto them." 2 Cor. v, 19. The act of recon- 
ciling is here ascribed to God and not to us ; but if reconciliation con- 
sisted in the laying aside of our own enmity, the act would be ours alone. 
Moreover, this reconciliation is effected, not by our laying aside our 
enmity, but by the non-imputation of our trespasses to us by God, or 
by his becoming propitious to us through Jesus Christ. This previous 
reconciliation of the world to God by the death of his Son is clearly 
distinguished by the apostle from our actual reconciliation ; for in virtue 
of it " the word of reconciliation " is proclaimed to the guilty, who are 
thus entreated to be " reconciled to God." 

The same doctrine is taught in Eph. ii, 16 : "That he might reconcile 
both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity 
thereby." Here the act of reconciling is attributed to Christ. Man is 
not spoken of as reconciling himself to God, but Christ is said to recon- 
cile Jews and Gentiles together, and both to God "by his cross." 
Thus, says the apostle, "he is our peace;" but in what manner is this 
peace effected ? Not, in the first instance, by subduing the enmity of 
man's heart, but by removing the enmity of " the law." " Having 
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments." The 



366 ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

ceremonial law only is here meant ; for by its abolition through its fulfill- 
ment in Christ the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was taken away. 
It was necessary, however, not only to reconcile Jews and Gentiles 
together, but to " reconcile both unto God." 

The above passages will show how falsely it has been asserted that 
the Scriptures nowhere represent God as being reconciled to us. The 
fact is, that the very phrase, our being reconciled to God, imports the 
turning away of his wrath from us. " If thou bring thy gift to the altar, 
and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee" not 
that thou hast aught against thy brother, " first be reconciled to thy 
brother ;" that is, appease and conciliate him ; so that the words, in fact, 
import, see that thy brother be reconciled to thee, since that which goes 
before is not that he has done thee an injury, but thou him. 

Thus, then, for us to be reconciled to God is to avail ourselves of the 
means by which his anger toward us is to be appeased, which the New 
Testament expressly declares to be generally the sin-offering of him 
" who knew no sin," and instrumentally, as to each individual person- 
ally, " faith in his blood." But the propitiatory character of the death 
of Christ is still further explained in the New Testament, 

4. By the manner in which it connects our justification with "faith 
in his blood" and both our justification and the death of Christ as its 
meritorious cause, with the righteousness of God. — The justification 
of man is an act of the highest grace — a manifestation of the ineffable 
love of God, and is at the same time a strictly righteous proceeding. 
These views, scattered throughout the books of the New Testament, 
are summed up in the following explicit language of St. Paul, Rom. 
iii, 24-26 : " Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption 
that is in Jesus Christ ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission 
of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, 
at this time, his righteousness / that he might be just, and the justifier 
of him which believeth in Jesus." 

The argument of the apostle is exceedingly lucid. He treats of man's 
justification before God, of which he mentions two methods. The first 
is by our own obedience to the law of God. This method of justifica- 
tion he proves to be impossible to man, laying it down as an incontro- 
vertible maxim that "by the deeds of the law there shall ho flesh be 
justified." The other method is justification by the grace of God, as a 
" free gift," but coming to us through the interposition of the death of 
Christ as our redemption price and received instrumentally by faith in 
him. 

But the apostle shows, moreover, that while this method of justifica- 
tion displays the grace and mercy of God, it also vindicates his justice. 
Christ is " set forth to be a propitiation," that God " might be just, and 
the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Similar language is also 



Chap. 4.] DEATH OF CHRIST PROPITIATORY. 367 

used by St. John : " He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." 
1 John i, 9. Thus the grand doctrine of Christianity is unequivocally 
stated by both apostles to be that, according to its constitution, the for- 
giveness of sin is at once an act of mercy and of justice, or of strictly 
righteous government. Nor is it difficult to see how the doctrine of 
pardon through the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ declares the right- 
eousness of God. For, 

(1.) The law, the rule of the Divine government, is by this means 
established in its authority and perpetuity. — For the Christian, doc- 
trine of atonement is, that sin cannot go unpunished under the Divine 
administration. But the hypothesis which rejects the doctrine of atone- 
ment repeals the law by granting impunity to transgressors ; for if pun- 
ishment does not follow offense, or if no other term of pardon is required 
than one which the culprit has it always in his power to offer, then is 
the law, as to its authority, virtually repealed, and the Divine govern- 
ment over rebellious creatures annihilated. 

(2.) This doctrine declares that God is a holy and righteous being — 
a strict and exact governor. — On any other theory there is no mani- 
festation of God's hatred of sin, answering to all that intense holiness 
of his nature which must lead him to abhor it, and no proof of his rec- 
toral justice as governor of the moral world. 

(3.). The doctrine which connects the pardon of the guilty with the 
meritorious death of Christ illustrates the attributes of Divine justice 
by the very act of connecting and blending it with the attribute of love, 
and the exercise of an effectual compassion. While it guards with so 
much care the doctrine of non-impunity to sin, it offers impunity to sin- 
ners ; but the medium through which this offer is made serves to 
heighten the impression of God's hatred of sin. The person appointed 
to suffer the penalty of the law for us was the Father's " only begotten 
Son." In him divinity and humanity were united in one person, so that 
he was " God manifest in the flesh," assuming our nature in order that 
he might offer it in death, a sacrifice to God. If this was necessary, 
and we have proved that it was, then is sin declared, by the strongest 
possible demonstration, to be an evil of immeasurable extent ; and the 
justice of God is, by a demonstration of equal force, declared to be 
inflexible and inviolable. God " spared not his own Son, but delivered 
him up for us all." 

(4.) It is further to be considered that though by the death of Christ all 
men antecedent to their repentance and faith are put into a salvable 
state, yet none of them are, by this act of Christ, brought from tmder 
the authority of the moral lata. This remains in its full and original 
force ; and as all continue under the original obligation of obedience, 
those who neglect the great salvation offered to them by Christ fall 
under the full original penalty of the law, and are left to its malediction 
without obstruction to the exercise of Divine justice. Nor with respect 



868 atonement. [Book IV. 

to those who are justified by faith in Christ is there any repeal, or even 
relaxation of the law of God. The end of justification is not to set men 
free from law, but from punishment. It follows, therefore, that in the 
doctrine of the atonement of Christ the authority of the Divine law is 
established, the rectoral justice of God is manifested, and the strictness 
of a righteous government is united with the exercise of mercy. 

These views respecting the propitiatory character of the death of. 
Christ will enable us to attach an explicit meaning to the theological 
phrase, " satisfaction made to Divine justice" by which the nature 
of the atonement is often expressed. This is not a phrase of Holy Writ; 
but it is not, on this account, to be disregarded, since, like many other 
theological terms and phrases, it has been found useful as a guard 
against subtle evasions of the doctrine of Scripture, and in giving 
explicitness, not indeed to the language of inspiration, but to the sense 
in which that language is interpreted. 

The term satisfaction is taken from the Roman law, and signifies to 
content a person aggrieved, by doing or offering something which pro- 
cures liberation from the obligation of debts or the penalties of offenses, 
not ipso facto, but by the will of the aggrieved party admitting the 
substitution. It is from this use of the term that it has been adopted 
into theology ; and, however its meaning may have been heightened or 
lowered by the advocates of different systems, it simply indicates the 
contentment of the injured party by whatever he may choose to accept 
in place of the enforcement of his obligation upon the party indebted or 
offending. Accordingly, we call the death of Christ a satisfaction made 
to Divine justice for the transgressions of men with reference to its 
effect upon the mind of the Supreme Lawgiver. As a just Governor, 
he is satisfied with the atonement made by the vicarious death of his 
Son; and being disposed from the goodness of his nature to show 
mercy to the guilty, he can now do it consistent with the rectitude of 
his character and with the authority of his laws. 

There are other phrases, such as " a full equivalent," and " an ade- 
quate compensation," which theologians have often employed in con- 
nection with this subject, and to which, when soberly interpreted, there 
can be no reasonable objection. "A full equivalent" is something 
equal in value, or of equal force and power to something else ; but here 
the phrase is to be understood in a judicial sense. The- meaning is, 
that the death of Christ for sinners as a means of a righteous govern- 
ment was determined in the infallible judgment of God to be a demon- 
stration of his justice, fully equal to the personal and extreme punish- 
ment of offenders themselves. 

So, also, as to the term " compensation," which signifies the weighing 
of one thing against another, the making of amends. If this be inter- 
preted as the former, judicially, the death of Christ for sinners is an 
adequate compensation for their personal punishment in the estimation 



Chap. 4.] DEATH OF CHRIST PROPITIATORY. 369 

of Divine justice ; because it is, at least, an equally powerful demonstra- 
tion of the righteousness of God, who only in consideration of that 
atonement forgives the sins of offending men. 

It is objected by those who oppose the doctrine of atonement, that it 
is unjust to lay the punishment of the guilty upon the innocent. The 
objection resolves itself into an inquiry how far such benevolent 
interpositions of one person for another, as involve sacrifice and 
suffering, may go, without violating justice ; and when the subject is 
followed in this direction it will be found that the objection is of no 
weight. 

It has always been regarded a virtue for men to endure incon- 
veniences, to encounter danger, and even to suffer, in certain circum- 
stances, for the sake of others. Parents and friends not only endure 
labor and make sacrifices for their children and connections, but often 
submit to positive pain in accomplishing that to which their affection 
prompts them. To save a fellow-creature from perishing by water or 
fire, men of generous minds often expose themselves to great personal 
risk of life, and even sometimes perish in the attempt ; yet the claims 
of humanity are considered sufficient to justify such deeds, which are 
never blamed, but always, applauded. 

No man's life, we grant, is at his own disposal ; but in all cases 
where it is agreed that God has left men at liberty to offer their life for 
the benefit of others, no one questions the justice of their doing it. 
Thus, when a patriot army marches to almost certain destruction to 
defend its coast from foreign invasion and violence, the established 
notion that the life of every man is at the disposal of his country justi- 
fies the hazard. But it is still a clearer instance, because matter of 
revelation, that there are cases in which we ought " to lay down our 
lives for the brethren;" that is, for the Church and the interests of 
religion in the world. In times of persecution it is obligatory upon 
Christians not only to suffer but even to die, rather than deny Christ. No 
one questions the justice of this, because all see that God has invested 
men with the right of thus disposing of their life ; nor do we ever hear 
it urged that it is unjust in him to require his servants to submit to 
racks, and fires, and other modes of violent death, which they certainly 
do not deserve. 

These cases are not adduced as parallel to the death of Christ for sin- 
ners ; but they agree with it so far that in the ordinary course of Provi- 
dence, and by express appointment of God, men suffer and even die for 
the benefit of others. In some cases, too, the morally worthy, the com- 
paratively innocent, die for the benefit of the unworthy and vicious. 
There is a similarity in the two cases also in other particulars, as that 
the sufferings of danger or death is in both a matter of choice, not of 
compulsion or necessity; and that there is a right in the parties to 
choose suffering or death, though, as we shall see, this right in benevo- 

24 



370 ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

lent men is of a different kind from that with which Christ was 
invested. 

In all the cases mentioned above, as most in point in the argument, 
we grant that there is no instance of satisfaction by vicarious punish- 
ment — no legal substitution of one person for another. Indeed, human 
governments could not justly adopt this principle in any case. They 
could not oblige an innocent person to suffer for the guilty, for that 
would be unjust to him ; nor could they accept his offer to become the 
substitute of another, were he even anxious to do so, for that would be 
unjust to God, since he has given them no authority to take away 
human life in this manner. 

"With respect to the Divine government a parallel case is also impos- 
sible, because no guilty man could be a substitute for his fellows, his 
own life being forfeited ; and no higher creature could be that substitute. 
For, if it was necessary that Christ, who is infinitely above all creatures, 
should suffer for us in order that God might be just in justifying the 
guilty, then his justice could not have been manifested by the interposi- 
tion of any created being in our behalf, and, therefore, the legal obsta- 
cle to our pardon must have remained in full force. 

Though there can be no full parallel to this singular and only case, 
yet, as to the question of justice, which is here the only point under 
consideration, it rests on the same principle as those before mentioned. 
In the case of St. Paul we see a willing sufferer. He chooses to suffer 
and to die " for the elect's sake," and that he might publish the Gospel 
to the world. Was it unjust in God to accept this offering of generous 
devotedness for the good of mankind, when it was in obedience to his 
own will ? Certainly not. Was it an unjust act toward God for St. 
Paul to choose to die for the Gospel ? By no means ; for God had 
made it his duty to die for the truth. 

The same considerations of choice and right unite in the sufferings of 
our Lord, though the case itself was one of an infinitely higher nature, 
a circumstance which strengthens but does not change the principle. 
He was a willing substitute, and choice was in him abundantly more 
free and unbiased than it could be in any creature. His incarnation 
was voluntary ; and, when incarnate, his sufferings were still a matter of 
choice ; nor was he, in the same sense as his disciples, under the power 
of men.> " No man taketh my life from me ; but I lay it down of myself." 
He had the right to do so in a sense in which no creature could possess 
it. To say that anything is unjust, is to say that the rights of some one 
are invaded ; but if in this case no right was invaded, than which noth- 
ing can be more clear, then was there in the case nothing of injustice as 
assumed in the objection. 

But the difficulty of reconciling the sufferings of Christ with Divine 
justice lies with those who deny the doctrine of atonement, and not with 
us. We who regard him as suffering by virtue of a voluntary substitution 



Chap. 5.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 371 

of himself in our room and stead can account for his agonies, and, by the 
foregoing arguments, can reconcile them to justice ; but, as our Lord was 
perfectly and absolutely innocent and holy, how will they reconcile it to 
Divine justice that he should be as pre-eminent in suffering as he was 
in virtue, when, according to them, he sustained a personal character 
only, and not a vicarious one ? For this difficulty they have no rational 
solution. 

We have now adduced the scriptural evidence of the atonement made 
by the death of Christ for the sins of the world ; and we have seen the 
agreement of the three grand dispensations of religion to man, the Patri- 
archal, the Levitical, and the Christian, in the great principle that 
** without shedding of blood there is no remission." Indeed, only one 
religion has been given to man since the fall, though gradually commu- 
nicated. This is fitly denominated " the ministry op reconciliation ;" 
for its exclusive object is, however modified externally, to reconcile an 
apostate race to their offended Creator. 



CHAPTEE V. 

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



Having established, as we believe, the doctrine of the atonement by the 
vicarious sufferings and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, we will proceed 
in the next place to inquire into its extent, or to examine the question, 
For whom are the benefits of the death of Christ designed ' f This inquiry 
will lead us into what is called the Calvinistic controversy ; with respect 
to which we may observe that it forms a clear case of appeal to the Scrip- 
tures. For, whether the benefits of Christ's death are extended to the 
whole of our race or only to a part, must be a matter of Divine revela- 
tion. 

But before we attempt to vindicate what we believe to be the doctrine 
of Scripture in regard to the extent of the atonement, we will present a 
brief view of the several leading theories which have been entertained 
respecting it. These we will denominate the Calvinistic, the Universal, 
and the Arminian. 

I. The Calvinistic theory. 

All genuine Calvinists agree in believing that Christ did not so die for 
man as to make it possible for all men to be saved— in other words, that 
the saving benefits of Christ's death are confined to those of mankind 
whom God "predestinated unto everlasting life." It is true Calvinistic 
divines have expressed themselves upon this subject in a very diversified 
manner ; and we may rationally conclude, judging from their language, 



372 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

that they have differed, at least in some respects, from one another. But 
when we come to the real question, Did Christ so die for all men as to 
make their salvation possible? every Calvinist will answer in the negative. 
It will be proper, however, in order that we may do justice to all, to 
state some of the principal views which have been propagated by theo- 
logians under the general name of Calvinism. We will notice, 

1. What maybe called the strict Calvinistic view, that the atonement 
of Christ is limited in its nature, design, and benefits to the elect, so that 
Christ died for them alone ; that he represented them alone in the cove- 
nant of redemption ; and, consequently, that none but the elect can pos- 
sibly be saved. 

This view was held by Calvin himself, and is set forth in the " West- 
minster Confession of Faith," which is the standard of nearly all the Cal- 
vinistic Churches both in Europe and America. It is held, however, by 
the abettors of this system, that all men, by virtue of the atonement of 
Christ, are favored with temporal mercies, and with what they term a 
"common call" of the Gospel; but they deny that these benefits were 
designed to eventuate in their eternal salvation, or that it is possible they 
should. 

2. Another scheme is that the atonement of Christ possessed sufficient 
value in its nature to redeem the whole world ; but that it was designed 
to be applied only to the elect, and cannot possibly be extended in its 
application to any others. 

The only point in which this system seems to differ from the first is that 
it allows a sufficiency in the nature of the atonement to avail for the sal- 
vation of all ; but that sufficiency in nature is completely neutralized by 
the declaration that, according to the purpose of God, the application 
cannot possibly be made to any but the elect. This system has some- 
times been called " general redemption with a particular application^ 
But to call it a scheme of general redemption is obviously an abuse of 
language ; for if none but the elect can possibly obtain the benefits of 
the atonement, the work of redemption, so far as others are concerned, 
is only in name, and amounts to a perfect nullity. There is, therefore, no 
real difference between this scheme and the one preceding. 

3. Again, it is taught by some that the atonement is not only sufficient, 
but was also designed for the salvation of all men ; and that the Gospel 
should therefore be preached with sincerity alike to all. .But they hold 
at the same time that none but the elect can possibly be saved, because 
men cannot be saved unless they believe the Gospel, and men cannot 
believe unless God gives them faith ; and this he has decreed from all 
eternity to withhold from those who are not elected. The substance of 
this theory is, that Christ has purchased for all men a conditional salva- 
tion ; that faith in Christ is this condition ; but that, according to the 
Divine purpose, none but the elect can possibly obtain this faith. 

This is substantially the scheme which was advocated by the pious 



Chap. 5.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 373 

Baxter, with the avowed purpose of steering a middle course between 
Arminianism and rigid Calvinism. It differs little from the views enter- 
tained by Dr. Samuel Hopkins and many other divines of the last and 
the present century, both in Europe and America. Calvinists of this 
class feel themselves warranted in offering salvation to all men, in urging 
all to repent and believe the Gospel, and in assuring all that they have 
a sufficiency of grace to enable them to comply with the Gospel call, 
and that if any are not saved the fault is their own. Indeed, they 
appear to those who are not well versed in the technicalities of their 
theological system to exhibit the benefits of the atonement with as 
much unrestrained fullness to all mankind as it would be possible for 
Arminians to do. It is, therefore, not surprising that many should be 
unable to distinguish their views in regard to the extent of the atone- 
ment from genuine Arminianism. But, though we freely exonerate 
them from any intention to give their trumpet "an uncertain sound," yet 
it is most evident, if we take their language as they themselves understand 
it, that their views, so far from being Arminian, are reconcilable with the 
most rigid Calvinism. 

When they say that all men have a sufficiency of grace to enable them 
to repent and believe the Gospel, we must not overlook their own inter- 
pretation of the term sufficiency. By the phrase "sufficient 
grace," as used in reference to the non-elect, we are not to understand 
invincible effectual grace, such as is given to the elect, but merely 
" sufficient ineffectual grace," as Baxter himself termed it. What he 
understood by this phrase is evident from his own language : "I say it 
again, confidently, all men that perish (who have the use of reason) do 
perish directly for rejecting sufficient recovering grace. By grace I 
mean mercy contrary to merit. By recovering I mean such as tendeth in 
its own nature toward their recovery and leadeth or helpeth them 
thereto. By sufficient I mean not sufficient directly to save them, (for 
such none of the elect have till they are saved,) nor yet sufficient to give 
them faith, or cause them savingly to believe. But it is sufficient to 
bring them nearer Christ than they are, though not to put them into 
immediate possession of Christ by union with him, as faith would do."* 

We may regard these words of Baxter as a just comment on the lan- 
guage of all Calvinists who tell us that a sufficiency of grace is given to 
all men. They mean a sufficiency to do them some good, " to bring 
them nearer Christ than they are," and even a sufficiency to save them 
if they would believe ; but this they cannot do, because God withholds 
saving faith from all but the elect. It is impossible, therefore, to under- 
stand the phrase " sufficient grace," as employed by Baxter and others, 
to signify anything more than insufficient grace. So far as the non-elect 
are concerned, the term sufficient is entirely explained away, and the 
system falls back on the platform of rigid Calvinism. 
* Universal Redemption, page 434. 



374 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

Again, when Calvinists say that all men have the ability to believe 
and be saved, they do not understand the term ability according to the full 
import of the word as it is commonly used. They make a distinction 
between natural and moral ability. By the former they mean the phys- 
ical power necessary to the performance of any specific act. By the lat- 
ter, that mental state or condition of the will which is necessary to the 
performance of an action. When they say that all men may believe, 
they only mean that all men have the natural powers necessary to saving 
faith. But they hold that these powers cannot be exerted without the 
moral ability; which, nevertheless, God has determined to withhold 
from all who are not elected to eternal life. " It is admitted by Calvin- 
ists," says Dr. Hill, "that the moral inability in those who are not 
elected is of such a kind as will infallibly prevent their obeying the com- 
mands of God ; and it is a part of their system, that the Being who 
issues these commands has resolved to withhold from such persons the 
grace which alone is sufficient to remove that inability."* 

It follows, therefore, from what we have seen, that however Calvin- 
ists may differ from one another on points of little or no importance, in 
regard to the extent of the atonement, and however diversified may be 
their language and modes of reasoning upon the subject, when they 
come to the main question in controversy they all harmonize. Whether 
they speak of the atonement as being universal or limited ; whether they 
present the offer of Gospel grace in terms the most general, or with 
marked restriction; whether they are supralapsarian or sublapsarian in 
their peculiar views of the covenant of redemption ; whether they are 
Antinomians or moderate Calvinists; whether they are Baxterians, 
Hopkinsians, Old School or New School ; whether -they dwell mostly on 
free-agency and sufficient grace, or on Divine sovereignty and philo- 
sophic necessity; or in whatever else they may differ, they arrive at 
the same ultimate conclusion, that the atonement of Christ did not so 
extend to all men as to make their salvation possible. 

II. The theory of Univeesalism. 

This theory has for its starting point the Calvinistic tenet, that the 
atonement will infallibly be applied to all for whom it was intended. 
Universalists reason thus : All for whom Christ made an atonement will 
infallibly be saved. But the Scriptures teach that Christ made an 
atonement for all men ; therefore, all men will infallibly -be saved. If 
the propositions in this argument are both true the conclusion is 
unavoidable, and "Oniversalism is the true theory of the atonement. 
Calvinists oppose the argument by attempting to disprove the second 
proposition, while Arminians overthrow it by disproving the first. 

It is not our intention in this place to enter into an investigation of 
the general system of Universalism. A brief consideration of its funda- 
mental principle is all that we suppose to be necessary. The scheme 

* Hill's Lectuj-es. 



Chap. 5.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 375 

itself is evidently based upon an erroneous view in regard to the nature, 
of the atonement. Universalists represent the work of redemption as a 
commercial transaction between the Father and the Son, by which the 
Son made a fair purchase of the human family by paying down, in his 
sufferings and death, an adequate price for the unconditional salvation of 
all men; and that, consequently, justice can have no claim upon any 
man, to punish him hereafter. It is true that many Calvinists take the 
same view of the atonement, so far as its nature is concerned. The only 
difference is that they limit its saving benefits to the elect, by which 
their salvation is absolutely and unconditionally secured, while others 
are left to perish in their sins, without the possibility of escape. 

But this whole scheme, whether advocated by Universalists or Calvin- 
ists, is based upon a false assumption. The Scriptures everywhere 
represent the atonement, not as a commercial transaction, but as a gov- 
ernmental arrangement. According to the commercial view of the 
nature of the atonement it would inevitably follow that all for whom the 
atonement was made would infallibly be saved. Consequently, the only 
point of controversy between Calvinists and Universalists would be, 
whether Christ made an atonement for the elect only, or for all mankind ; 
as both parties would be compelled to admit that all for whom the atone- 
ment was made would most assuredly be saved. 

That this commercial view of the subject is erroneous and unscrip- 
tural will be obvious when we reflect that it tends directly to banish 
from the scheme of human redemption the whole system of grace. If 
Christ has purchased, by the payment of an equivalent, the absolute and 
unconditional salvation of all for whom he died, then it follows that the 
Father is under obligations, in strict justice, to save them. Consequently 
their salvation, so far as God the Father is concerned, is not of grace, 
but of debt ; and the entire display of the Divine benevolence in the 
eternal salvation of sinners is reduced to a fiction. 

It is incorrect to suppose that the atonement, of itself, brings the 
Almighty under obligations to save men. It is true that without the 
atonement none could be saved ; but that alone does not inevitably and 
necessarily secure the salvation of any. It only removes the obstructions 
which stood in the way of man's salvation. These obstructions were, a 
broken law, and the unsatisfied claims of Divine justice. While these 
barriers were in the way God could not, consistent with his nature and 
the rectitude of his moral government, extend mercy to man. But 
though the atonement has removed every obstruction to the exercise of 
Divine mercy toward man, it does not necessarily follow that God is 
under obligations to extend mercy to him. It only follows that he may. 
The atonement, then, considered in the abstract, leaves God free either 
to extend or withhold pardoning mercy ; whereas, without this provis- 
ion, he was not free to extend mercy, but was bound to withhold it. 
All the obligations which God is under to save sinners arise, not from 



376 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

the fact of the atonement, but from his own gracious promises. Hence 
it follows that God is under no obligations, merely on account of the 
atonement of Christ, to save any man ; much less to save all men uncon- 
ditionally. 

If, then, God is free to extend or withhold mercy according to his own 
good pleasure, it necessarily follows that he has a right to fix the con- 
ditions of our salvation. And as he has promised salvation to those who 
repent and believe the Gospel, and threatened eternal destruction to 
the impenitent and unbelieving, those who reject the conditions of sal- 
vation must perish everlastingly, and with them must perish also the 
dream of Universalism. 

Having presented the true attitude and the essential agreement of 
Calvinists in regard to the main question of controversy, and having 
pointed out the sandy foundation of Universalism, we will turn our 
attention, 

III. To the Aeminian theory. 

Arminianism, strictly speaking, is that system of religious doctrine 
which was taught by Dr. James Arminius, Professor of Divinity in the 
University of Leyden. If, therefore, we would learn precisely what 
Arminianism is, we must have recourse to the writings of that great 
divine. This, however, will by no means give us an accurate idea of 
that which, since his time, has been usually denominated Arminianism. 
On examination it will be found that, in many important particulars, 
those who have called themselves Arminians, or have been accounted 
such by others, differ as widely from Arminius as he himself differed 
from Calvin and other doctors of Geneva. 

The leading tenets of the Arminian system may be comprised in the 
following five articles : 

" (1.) That God from all eternity determined to bestow salvation on 
those whom he foresaw would persevere unto the end in their faith in 
Christ Jesus, and to inflict everlasting punishment on those who should 
continue in their unbelief, and resist unto the end his Divine succors ; so 
that election was conditional, and reprobation in like manner the result 
of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness. 

" (2.) That Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death, made an atone- 
ment for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in par- 
ticular ; that, however, none but those who believe in him- can be par- 
takers of the Divine benefits. 

" (3.) That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural 
faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free-will ; since 
man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either of 
thinking or doing any good thing ; and that, therefore, it is necessary, in 
order to his salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the oper- 
ation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. 

" (4.) That this Divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost begins and 



Chap. 6.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 377 

perfects everything that can be called good in man, and consequently all 
good works are to be attributed to God alone ; that, nevertheless, this 
grace is offered to all, and does not force men to act against their inclin- 
ations, but may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse 
wills of impenitent sinners. 

" (5.) That God gives to the truly faithful, who are regenerated by 
his grace, the means of preserving themselves in this state ; and though 
the first Arminians made some doubt with respect to the closing part of 
this article, their followers uniformly maintain that the regenerate may 
lose true justifying faith, forfeit their state of grace, and die in their 
sins." * 

From this statement of the general, principles of Arminianism we may 
conclude that all genuine Arminians agree, 1. That, though the atone- 
ment has been made, those to whom the Gospel is addressed cannot be 
saved without faith in Christ ; 2. That mankind, by the exercise of their 
own natural powers, are incapable of believing in Christ unto salvation 
without the supernatural influence of Divine grace; and, 3. That the 
assisting grace of God is, through the atonement, so extended to every 
man as to enable him to partake of salvation. 

We see, then, that while Arminians discard the merit of works, or 
ability to save themselves, they agree in believing that the atonement of 
Christ so extends to all men as to make their salvation possible ; and as 
the substance of the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians is 
plainly involved in this single question, we are now prepared to appeal 
" to the law and to the testimony." On a subject so important as this 
we cannot confidently rely on anything short of " Thus saith the Lord ;" 
and, happy for us, there is no subject on which the Holy Scriptures are 
more copious and explicit. 



CHAPTER VI. 

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



The question now before us, and which we propose to discuss in this 
chapter, is simply this : Did Christ so die for all men, as to make salva- 
tion attainable by all? That the affirmative of this question is the 
real doctrine of Scripture, we will at once proceed to prove. But, 
before we adduce the arguments in support of our proposition, we may 
be allowed to premise that the saving benefits of the atonement are 
nowhere limited in the sacred Scriptures to a part of mankind. No 
* Watson's Biblical Dictionary. 



378 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

advocate of a limited atonement will pretend that there is a single pas- 
sage which directly declares, either that Christ did not die for all men, 
or that he died only for some. This is an important fact in the argu- 
ment, and with this advantage it will be easy to establish our position. 
That Christ so died for all mankind as to render their salvation possible, 
may be argued, 

I. From all those passages oe Scripture which designate the 

OBJECTS OF REDEMPTION BY UNIVERSAL TERMS. 

We have already seen that the phrase, to die "for us," signifies to 
die in our room and stead, as a sacrificial oblation, by which satisfaction 
is made for our sins, so that they become remissible upon the terms of 
the evangelical covenant. When, therefore, it is said that Christ, " by 
the grace of God, tasted death for every man;" and that " he is the 
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of 
the whole world;" it can only, we think, be fairly concluded from such 
declarations, that by the death of Christ the sins of every man are 
rendered remissible, and that salvation is consequently attainable by 
every man. 

Again, St. John testifies, " that the Father sent the Son to be the 
Saviour of the world ;" and our Lord himself declares, " God so loved 
the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, for God sent not his 
Son into the world to condemn the world ; but that the world through 
him might be saved." St. Paul tells us that " he died for all" and that 
he is " the Saviour of all men" 

To this class of texts it is objected, that the phrases " all men" "the 
ivorld" and " the whole world" are sometimes used in Scripture in a 
limited sense. This, however, may be granted without any injury to 
our argument. For, though in Scripture, as in common language, all 
and every, and such universals, are occasionally used in a limited sense, 
when the connection prevents any misunderstanding, yet they are strictly 
universal terms, and are most frequently used in this manner. The true 
question then is, whether in the passages above cited the phrases " every 
man," " all men," " the world," and " the whole world," can be under- 
stood except in their largest sense, whether they can be interpreted of 
the elect only. This we very confidently deny, because, 

1. Their universal sense is confirmed, either by the context of the 
passages in which they occur, or by other Scriptures. — When Isaiah 
says, "All we, like sheep, have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on 
him the iniquity of us all," he affirms that the iniquity of all who had 
gone astray was laid on Christ. When St. Paul says, " We thus judge 
that if one died for all, then were all dead," he argues the universality 
of spiritual death from the universality of the means adopted for raising 
men to spiritual life, a plain proof that Christ's dying for all men is taken 
in its utmost latitude, or else it could not be made the basis of the 



Chap. 6.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 379 

apostle's argument. When he says that Christ is " the Saviour of all 
men, specially of those that believe," he manifestly includes all mankind 
as being interested in this salvation, though the full benefits of it are 
received only by them that believe. 

When the apostle declares that, " as by the offense of one judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of 
one the free gift came upon all men" «c, in order to "justification of 
life," the force of the comparison would be lost if the term " all men " 
were not taken in its widest sense. Nor can it be objected, that the 
apostle uses the terms " many " and " all men " indiscriminately in this 
chapter, for in this there is no contradiction. All men are many, though 
many in numerous cases are not all. But it is evident that he uses the 
term " many " in the sense of all, as appears from the following paral- 
lels : " Through the offense of one many be dead ;" " death passed upon 
all men." " The gift by grace hath abounded unto many, the free gift 
came upon all men." 

It is equally impracticable to restrict the phrases " the world," and 
"the whole world," and to paraphrase them the world of the elect. 
And yet there is no other alternative ; for, either " the world " means 
those elected out of it, or else Christ died in an equal sense for every 
man. The elect, however, are never called " the world " in Scripture, 
but are everywhere distinguished from it. " If ye were of the world," 
said our Saviour to his disciples, " the world would love his own ; but 
because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, 
therefore the world hateth you." John xv, 19. " We know that we are 
of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." 1 John v, 19. But 
we deny this restrictive interpretation, because, 

2. It leads, in many cases, to gross absurdity. — " God so loved the 
world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
him should not perish." Now, if the world here means the elect, then 
it is affirmed that whosoever of this elect world believeth shall not 
perish ; which plainly implies, that some of the elect may not believe, 
and may therefore perish. The same absurdity 'will follow from a like 
interpre'tation of the great Gospel commission. If " all the world," and 
" every creature," mean the elect only, then he of the elect who believes 
" shall be saved," and he of the elect who believes not " shall be 
damned." Passages so plain and explicit cannot be turned into any 
such consequences by any true method of interpretation. They must, 
therefore, be taken in their obvious sense, which unequivocally expresses 
the universality of the atonement. 

It has been urged by the advocates of a limited atonement that our 
Lord himself says, John xvii, 9 : " I pray for them : I pray not for the 
world, but for them which thou hast given me." Do they interpret 
" the world " here to be the elect ? If so, they cut off even them from 
the benefit of Christ's prayer. If they say it means the non-elect, then 



380 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

they must allow that one end which our Lord had in view in this prayer 
was that this non-elect world might believe, verse 21. They may choose 
either side of the alternative. 

It may be affirmed, therefore, that a restrictive interpretation of this 
class of texts contradicts the plainest declarations of God's own word. 
For it is not true, upon this interpretation, that " God loved the world," 
nor is it true that Christ was "not sent to condemn the world," 
if his coming only enhanced its condemnation ; nor that the Gospel, as 
" good tidings of great joy," can be preached to " every creature," for 
it is sad and doleful tidings to all who are shut out from the benefits of 
the atonement. But our view of this question is supported, 

II. By those passages which asceibe an equal extent to the 

EFFECTS OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, AS TO THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. 

The apostle argues thus : " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
shall all be made alive.'''' 1 Cor. xv, 22. It is admitted that in this pas- 
sage the resurrection of the body is the main topic of discussion ; never- 
theless, there is here a clear inferential proof that Christ died for all men 
so as to make salvation attainable by all. For, if by virtue of the death 
and resurrection of Christ all men are to be redeemed from the grave, 
then it will follow that all men were represented by him in the covenant of 
redemption. And if so, he must have died as an expiation for their sins. 

Again : " Not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through 
the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the 
gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto 
many. Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation ; even so, by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon 
all men unto justification of life." Rom. v, 15, 18. Here the "free gift " 
is represented as even going beyond the " offense," which it could not 
do if it were only designed to make salvation possible to a part of our 
race. Moreover, as " all men " are said to be brought into condemnation 
by the " offense of one," even so " the free gift " is said to come " upon 
all men," eig, in order to "justification of life." This implies a possibil- 
ity of salvation, and from this passage alone it is just as plain that all 
men may be saved through Christ as that all are condemned in Adam. 
We prove our position, 

III. By passages of Scripture which declare that Christ died 

FOR THOSE WHO MAY PERISH. 

"Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died? Rom. 
xiv, 15. Him, says Pool, for whom, "in the judgment of charity," we 
are to presume Christ died.* To say nothing of the danger of such 
unlicensed paraphrases in the interpretation of Scripture, it is obvious 
that this exposition entirely annuls the motive by which the apostle 
enforces his exhortation. For if I admit that none can be destroyed for 
whom Christ died, then, in proportion to the charity of my judgment 

* Pool's Annotations. 



Chap. 6.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 381 

that any one is of this number, I may be the less cautious of ensnaring 
his conscience in indifferent matters ; since at least this is certain, that he 
cannot perish, and I cannot be guilty of destroying him. "Would the 
apostle thus counteract his own design ? Would he seriously admonish 
his readers not to do that which he knew to be impossible ? 

Mr. Scott, feeling how difficult it is to reconcile this passage of Scrip- 
ture with his own theological system, charges the inspired penman with 
careless writing. " The apostles," he observes, " did not write in that 
exact systematical style which some affect, otherwise they would scru- 
pulously have avoided such expressions." * This is rather in the man- 
ner of Priestley or Belsham than that of an orthodox commentator ; but 
it does homage to the force of truth by turning away from it, and by 
tacitly acknowledging that the Scriptures cannot be Calvinistically inter- 
preted. 

Again : " And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish 
for whom Christ died" 1 Cor. viii, 11. "Of how much sorer punish- 
ment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under 
foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, where- 
with he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the 
Spirit of grace." Heb. x, 29. "But there were false prophets also among 
the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily 
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought 
them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Peter ii, 1. 

Mr. Scott observes on this last passage " that Christ's ransom was of 
infinite sufficiency, and the proposal of it in Scripture general ; so that 
men are addressed according to their profession ; but that Christ only 
intended to redeem those whom he foresaw would eventually be saved." 
On this we may remark, 1. That the sufficiency of Christ's redemption 
is not the question with the apostle, but the actual redemption of these 
deniers of Christ. He is called " the Lord that bought them ;" but if he 
did not intend to redeem them, he did not buy them at all ; which con- 
tradicts the apostle. 2. That the proposal of Christ's ransom is general, 
and that all men are addressed as being interested in it, we grant, and 
see how well this accords with the doctrine of general redemption ; but 
the difficulty lies with those who limit the atonement of Christ to the 
elect, to explain, not merely how men can be addressed generally, but 
how the sins of those who perish can be aggravated by the circumstance 
of Christ's having bought them, if he did not buy them ; and how they 
can be justly punished for rejecting him, if they never could receive him 
so as to be saved by him. 

Other passages of this class might be adduced, but these are sufficient 

to show that some for whom Christ died may perish, and, consequently, 

that it cannot be argued from the actual condemnation of men that they 

were, from all eternity, excluded from the saving benefits of the atone- 

* Kev. T. Scott's Notes. 



382 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

ment. But if Christ died for them that may perish, the reasonable 
inference is that he died for all mankind. This doctrine is further sup- 
ported, 

IV. By those Sckiptukes which authorize the preaching of the 
Gospel to all men. 

That our Lord intended the Gospel to be proclaimed throughout the 
whole world, and to every human being, is evident from the grand com- 
mission which he gave to his apostles : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you ; and lo ! I am with you alway, even unto the end 
of the world." Matt, xxviii, 19, 20. " Go ye into all the world, and 
preach the Gospel to every creature." Mark xvi, 15. In addition to this, 
our Lord has declared that "this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached 
in all the world for a witness unto all nations." Matt, xxiv, 14. " And 
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, 
among all nations." Luke xxiv, 47. 

But in order that we may perceive the force of the argument which 
these Scriptures furnish, it will be necessary to consider, 

1. The universal terms in which the Gospel commission is expressed. 
■—The apostles are commanded, by an authority as high as heaven, to 
"go into all the world''"' and to "preach the Gospel to every creature? 
They are commanded to go and " teach all nations," and to teach them 
" to observe all things whatsoever " Christ has commanded. The fact, 
then, is fully established, that the Gospel is to be preached, indiscrimin- 
ately, to all men. But let us now consider, 

2. The nature of the Gospel message. — What is the Gospel ? It is 
emphatically good news; or, as it is defined in Scripture, it is " good 
tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people? It is a message of 
mercy and salvation — a proclamation of peace on earth and " good- will 
toward men." Now, if the redeeming work of Christ made it possible 
for every man to be saved, there is a perfect consistency between the 
provisions of the atonement and the proclamation of the Gospel to all 
men. But if the possibility of Salvation is confined to a part of the 
human family, as Calvinism evidently teaches, the Gospel cannot be 
"good tidings to all people." It surely cannot be "good tidings" to 
those whose salvation was never made possible. 

Here it may be said, in justification of the unrestricted publication of 
the Gospel, that the atonement has secured to all men temporal mercies, 
and the common " ineffectual " calls of the Gospel and of the Holy Spirit. 
But to this we reply, that, according to Calvinism, these advantages, so 
far from rendering the condition of the non-elect more tolerable, or fur- 
nishing the least evidence that the Gospel can be good news to them, 
only aggravate their hopeless condition, and afford additional evidence 
that the Gospel cannot be to them good tidings of great joy." 



Chap. 6.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 383 

If all our temporal blessings flow from the covenant of redemption, as 
Calvinists will readily allow, then it will follow that if Christ had not 
made an atonement for man, no one, except the first sinning pair, could 
ever have enjoyed the blessing of personal existence, and consequently, 
that none others could ever have been exposed to personal suffering. 
And as it is clear that non-existence itself would be preferable to a state 
of inevitable and eternal misery, so it is equally clear, if Calvinistic 
reprobation were true, that life with all its attendant mercies would be 
to the non-elect not a blessing, but a curse. 

Again, if, as Calvinism teaches, these temporal mercies, and the calls of 
the Gospel and influences of the Spirit, cannot possibly be effectual to the 
salvation of any but the elect, and if the rejection of these calls and 
influences tends to greater condemnation and misery, then it will follow 
that as the non-elect cannot possibly avoid this rejection, the mercies of 
life and the gracious privileges of the Gospel tend inevitably to the 
aggravation of their unavoidable misery, and must be to them a real 
curse. If, then, we are to regard the Gospel as an unequivocal expres- 
sion of the Divine will respecting the recovery of our race ; if we would 
not turn it into mere mockery so far as the non-elect are concerned ; if we 
would not make it to them an engine of torture, instead of " good tid- 
ings of great joy," we must allow that it proclaims a salvation which is, 
through the atonement of Christ, made possible to all men. 

We have abundant proof that the most intelligent Calvinists feel 
themselves unable to reconcile the unlimited calls and invitations of the 
Gospel with the truth and sincerity of God. The Rev. Dr. Dick, after 
stating some of the attempts which are made to solve this difficulty, 
comes to the following conclusion : " We may pronounce, I think, these 
attempts to reconcile the universal call of the Gospel with the sincerity 
of God to be a faint struggle to extricate ourselves from the profundities 
of theology. They are far, indeed, from removing the difficulty. We 
believe, on the authority of Scripture, that God has decreed to give sal- 
vation to some and to withhold it from others. We know, at the same 
time, that he offers salvation to all in the Gospel, and to suppose that he 
is not sincere would be to deny him to be God. It may be right to 
endeavor to reconcile these things, because knowledge is always desir- 
able, and it is our duty to seek it as far as it can be attained. But if 
we find that beyond a certain limit we cannot go, let us be content to 
remain in ignorance. Let us reflect, however, that we are ignorant in 
the present case only of the connection between two truths, and not of 
the truths themselves, for these are clearly stated in the Scriptures. 
We ought, therefore, to believe both although we cannot reconcile 
them."* 

Here it may be observed that the doctor fully admits the universality 
of the calls and invitations of the Gospel, but contends " that God has 
* Dick's Theology, Lecture 65. 



384: EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

decreed to give salvation to some, and to icithhold it from others.'''' To 
reconcile this with the sincerity of God, he intimates, is beyond the 
powers of man, and he pronounces the attempt to be " a faint struggle 
to extricate ourselves from the profundities of theology." This, while 
it shows the candor of the learned author, is a fair acknowledgment that 
human reason cannot reconcile the leading principle of Calvinism, 
namely, that salvation is not made possible to all men, with the unde- 
niable fact that salvation is offered to all men. To reconcile these two 
points with one another, and both with the sincerity of God, is, we 
readily admit, beyond the power of human reason ; not, however, on 
account of the profundity of the subject, but because the task would 
require us to reconcile truth with falsehood, which is impossible. That 
salvation is not attainable by all men is a proposition which, though 
assumed by Calvinists, has never been proved ; and until this doctrine 
is clearly established from the Bible their efforts to reconcile it with the 
offer of salvation to all men are only faint struggles to extricate them- 
selves, not from " the profundities of theology," but from the " absurdi- 
ties of Calvinism." We conclude, therefore, that the only rational solution 
of this question is found in the doctrine that Christ so died for all man- 
kind as to render their salvation possible. Of this we have additional 
proof, 
V. In all those passages of Sceiptuee which eeqtjiee men to 

EEPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. 

" And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now command- 
eth all men everywhere to repent." Acts xvii, 30. " Repent ye, and 
believe the Gospel." Mark i, 15. "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 
xvi, 16. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he 
that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God 
abideth on him." John iii, 36. 

The plain inference from all such passages is, that the Gospel is 
preached to all men in order that they may repent and believe in Christ ; 
that repentance and faith are required of them, in order to their salva- 
tion ; that they have power to " believe to the saving of the soul," for 
those who believe not incur the wrath of God ; that, having power to 
believe unto salvation, they must have an interest in the merits of 
Christ's death ; and that, consequently, the atonement of Christ, through 
which alone salvation can be obtained, embraces all mankind-.. 

The same conclusion follows, also, from the nature of that faith which 
the Gospel requires in order to salvation. This always includes a per- 
sonal trust in the sacrificial death of Christ. But a God of truth could 
not require men for whose salvation the atonement of Christ made no 
provision to exercise such a trust. Nor could they be guilty for refus- 
ing to trust in an atonement from the saving benefits of which they 
were entirely excluded. 



Chap. G.] EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 385 

Either it is the duty of all men to believe the Gospel, or it is not. 
If we say it is not, we plainly contradict the Bible. If we say it is, then 
it will follow, either that it is possible for all men to believe, or that it 
is the duty of some men to do what is absolutely impossible ; and as the 
latter alternative is absurd, the former must be admitted. But if we 
admit that it is possible for all men to believe, then it will follow* either 
that those for whom Christ made no atonement may believe, or that he 
made an atonement for all men. To admit the former proposition 
implies a contradiction ; to admit the latter destroys Calvinism and 
establishes the Arminian theory. 

That repentance and faith are required of all men will not be denied 
by any who believe the Scriptures. And if so, we may then be allowed 
to ask, For what purpose, according to Calvinism, is this requirement 
made ? If the salvation of the non-elect is absolutely impossible, how 
could they be saved even if they were to believe ? Could their faith 
effect that which God has decreed shall never be effected ? Surely not. 
And how, we ask, can salvation be promised on the condition of faith, 
and damnation threatened as the consequence of unbelief, if neither the 
one nor the other has any dependence whatever upon man's moral 
agency? If, according to Calvinism, both salvation, the end, and 
faith, the means, are absolutely impossible to the non-elect, we must 
either deny that the Gospel makes it their duty to repent and believe, 
or admit that God will punish them eternally for not attaining an impos- 
sible end by the use of impossible means. The former alternative con- 
tradicts the Scriptures, the latter involves horrible absurdities ; and for 
those who hold the doctrine of a limited atonement there is no middle 
ground. Again, the extent of the atonement to all mankind may be 
argued, 

VI. From those Scriptures which show that men's failure to 

OBTAIN SALVATION IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR OWN FAULT. 

''Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my 
hand, and no man regarded ; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, 
and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity ; I will 
mock when your fear cometh." Prov. i, 24-26. " How often would I 
have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chick- 
ens under her wings, and ye would not !" Matt, xxiii, 37. " And this 
is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved 
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John iii, 19. 
u And ye will not come to me that ye might have life." John v, 40. 

It is unnecessary here to multiply quotations, since the Scriptures so 
constantly exhort men to obedience, reprove them for their folly, and 
threaten them with the penal consequences of their evil doings. It must 
therefore be admitted that the sole bar to the salvation of those who are 
lost is in themselves, and not in any such limitation of Christ's redemp- 
tion as supposes that they were excluded from its efficacy and gracious 

25 



386 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [Book IV. 

intention. Indeed, every Scripture which proves that men's failure to 
obtain salvation is attributable to themselves, is a proof also that the 
atonement of Christ has made salvation obtainable by all men. For, on 
what other ground can any man's destruction be justly regarded as self- 
secured ? He who never had it in his power to avoid the destruction 
which ^omes upon him, as Calvinism supposes to be the case with every 
reprobate, cannot, by any fair construction of language, be called his 
own destroyer. We conclude, therefore, that it would be incompatible 
with the justice of God to punish men in hell forever for not exercising 
a power which they never possessed, or for rejecting a remedy which 
was never provided for them. The very idea of future punishment pre- 
supposes the possibility of salvation in time. But man's salvation is 
only possible through the atonement of Christ; and if those who are 
finally lost perish from a state in which their salvation is possible, then 
it will follow that Christ died for them ; and if he died for them he died 
for all. 

Calvinists tell us that "the moral inability in those who are not elected 
is of such a kind as will infallibly prevent their obeying the commands of 
God ; and that the Being who issues these commands has resolved to 
withhold from such persons the grace which alone is sufficient to remove 
that inability." * But they contend, nevertheless, that the non-elect are 
justly punishable because they continue in unbelief willingly, and act 
according to their own choice in rejecting the Gospel remedy. This, 
however, instead of removing the difficulty, only shifts it to another 
point ; for if, as Calvinists allow, they have no power to will, or to 
choose different from what they do, they can no more be justly punishable 
for their perverse will and wicked choice than for any other unavoidable 
act. Our last argument on this subject is drawn, 

VII. From those Scriptures which declare the will op God 

RESPECTING THE SALVATION OF ALL MEN". 

" For I have no pleasure in the death of him that died, saith the Lord 
God; wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." Ezek. xviii, 32. "As I 
live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked ; 
but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Ezek. xxxiii, 11. " For 
this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour ; who will 
have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 
1 Tim. ii, 3, 4. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as 
some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us- ward, not will- 
ing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 
1 Pet. iii, 9. 

These Scriptures speak so plainly for themselves that comments are 

unnecessary. They prove beyond successful contradiction, first, that 

God takes no pleasure in the eternal death of any human being. This he 

has declared in the most impressive manner. "As I live, saith the Lord 

* Hill's Lectures in Divinity. 



Chap. 7.] PREDESTINATION. 387 

God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." But they as 
plainly prove, secondly, that God wills the eternal salvation of all men. 
He is willing " that all should come to repentance," and to " the knowl- 
edge of the truth;" and also, that all men should "be saved." But if 
God is " not willing that any should perish ;" if he is willing that all 
men should be saved ; and if the atonement which was made for man's 
salvation is in accordance with the Divine will, then it will necessarily 
follow that the atonement was made for all mankind. Or, in the lan- 
guage of the proposition with which we set out, that Christ so died 
for all mankind as to render their salvation possible. 

We have now shown that this proposition is established, 

1. By those texts of Scripture which designate the objects of redemp- 
tion by universal terms. 

2. By those which ascribe an equal extent to the effects of the death 
of Christ as to the effects of the fall. 

3. By those which declare that Christ died for such as may perish. 

4. By those which authorize the preaching of the Gospel to all men. 

5. By those which require men to repent and believe the Gospel. 

6. By those which show that men's failure to obtain salvation is attrib- 
utable to their own fault. And, 

7. By those which declare the will of God respecting the salvation of 
all men. 

These numerous Scriptures we have endeavored to understand, accord- 
ing to their plain and unsophisticated meaning. If they do not prove 
that Christ made an atonement for all men, we may well despair of ever 
being able to prove any proposition from the inspired volume. 



CHAPTER VII. 

PREDESTINATION. 



The doctrine of Predestination, as it is commonly understood, has an 
intimate connection with the doctrine of the atonement in regard to the 
extent of its benefits — the subject discussed in our last chapter — and it 
seems proper, therefore, that we should now offer some remarks upon 
this topic. Calvinists understand this doctrine in a sense which harmon- 
izes with their peculiar views of particular redemption, and a special 
provision for the salvation of the elect to the exclusion of any possibility 
of salvation to the rest of mankind ; while Arminians believe that pre- 
destination, as presented in the Scriptures, is in perfect accordance with 
the great doctrine of general atonement, which makes salvation possible 
to all men. 



388 PREDESTINATION. [Book IV. 

Whether Calvinists can really establish their peculiar views of predes- 
tination from the Scriptures we shall presently see ; but in order that 
we may discuss the subject with all due fairness, we will, in the first 
place, briefly state the leading features of their system in the language of 
their own acknowledged standards. 

" Predestination," says Calvin, " we call the eternal decree of God, 
by which he has determined in himself what he would have to become 
of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a 
similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal 
damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or 
the other of these ends, we say he is predestinated either to life or to 
death."* Again t " In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of 
Scripture, we assert that, by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has 
once for all determined both whom he would admit to salvation and 
whom he would condemn to destruction."! 

The doctrine of predestination is set forth in the Westminster Confes- 
sion of Faith in the following terms : " By the decree of God for the 
manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto 
everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. 

" These men and angels, thus predestinated and foreordained, are par- 
ticularly and unchangeably designed ; and their number is so certain 
and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. 

" Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life God, before the 
foundation of the world was laid according to his eternal and immutable 
purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen 
in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, 
without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either 
of them or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes 
moving him thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace. 

" As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eter- 
nal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means there- 
unto. Wherefore, they who are elected being fallen in Adam are 
redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his 
.Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and 
kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other 
redeemed by Christ effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and 
saved but the elect only. 

" The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to^ the unsearch- 
able counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth 
mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his crea- 
tures, to pass by, and to ordain to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to 
the praise of his glorious justice." 

It is evident, from these quotations, that the following are leading 
tenets in the Calvinistic scheme of predestination : 

* Institutes, Book 3, chap. 21. | Ibid. 



Chap. 7, § 1.] THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION. 389 

1. That all things, whether great or small, whether good or evil, 
whether they relate to the physical or to the moral world, to the history 
of angels or to the actions of men, were from all eternity firmly and 
unalterably determined by the immutable decree of God. 

2. That by this decree "some men and angels" were elected or 
chosen to everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting 
death. 

3. That the decree of election and reprobation is unconditional ; God 
having had no regard to faith, obedience, " or any other thing in the 
creature." 

4. That the predestination of moral creatures to everlasting life, or to 
everlasting death, is personal and absolute. They "are particularly and 
unchangeably designed ; and their number is so certain and definite that 
it cannot be either increased or diminished." 

5. That the election of some is the sole originating cause of their faith 
and obedience, and that the reprobation of others is the sole cause of 
their lack of faith and obedience. 

To sustain the peculiarities of the system which we have thus briefly 
sketched, Calvinists appeal to the Scriptures in which they suppose the 
doctrine of predestination to be taught, and institute a course of reason- 
ing founded mainly on the prescience and sovereignty of God. 

But before we enter upon the discussion of this subject it may be 
proper to remark, for the sake of clearness and precision, that the term 
predestination is employed by Calvinistic divines in rather a generic 
sense. " It is applicable," says Dr. Dick, " according to the import of 
the term, to all the purposes of God which determine beforehand what 
is to come to pass ; but it is usually limited to those purposes of which 
the spiritual and eternal state of man is the object."* Hence predesti- 
nation, in this last sense, resolves itself into the two great branches of 
the Divine purpose toward man — Election and Reprobation. To these 
doctrines, then, let us now turn our attention, and examine them in the 
light of inspired truth. 

§ 1. The Doctrine of Election, 

Election, in the Calvinistic sense, may be defined to be that " choice 
which God, in the exercise of sovereign grace, made of certain indi- 
viduals of mankind to enjoy salvation by Jesus Christ."f The Greek 
term which is rendered election is eicXoyr}, a choice; from the verb 
e/cAeyw, to choose. Hence the import of the verb to elect is to choose ; 
and the noun election signifies a choice. 

In opening the Bible upon this subject we find that there are three 
different kinds of election spoken of. These are, 1. The election of indi- 
viduals to perform some special service; 2. That of nations or bodies of 
* Dick's Theology, Lecture 25. f Id., Lecture 35. 



390 PREDESTINATION. [Book IV. 

men to eminent religious privileges ; and, 3. That of individuals to be 
the children of God and heirs of eternal life. 

I. The election of individuals to perform some particular and 

SPECIAL SERVICE. 

Thus Cyrus was " elected " to build the temple ; the twelve apostles 
were " chosen " to their office by Christ ; St. Paul was a " chosen ves- 
sel," to be the apostle of the Gentiles. This kind of election has, how- 
ever, manifestly no relation to the limitation of eternal salvation. It 
did not confer upon the persons so chosen an absolute security. One of 
the elected apostles was Judas, who fell and was lost ; and St. Paul con- 
fesses his own personal liability to become " a castaway." It did not 
exclude others from the saving grace of God, for the apostles were 
"elected" to preach the Gospel in order to their salvation. 

II. THE ELECTION OF NATIONS OR BODIES OF MEN TO EMINENT RELIG- 
IOUS PRIVILEGES, AND IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH, BY THEIR SUPERIOR 
ILLUMINATION, THE MERCIFUL PURPOSES OF GOD TO OTHERS. 

Of this kind of election we have an example, 

1. In the history of the Jews. — They were chosen to receive special 
revelations of truth, to be the " people of God," to be his visible Church, 
and publicly to observe and uphold his worship. " The Lord had a 
delight in thy fathers to love them, even you above all people." Deut. 
x, 15. It was on account of the application of the terms elect, chosen, 
and peculiar to the Jewish people that they were so frequently 
applied by the apostles to the members of the Christian Church ; for 
we may remark, 

2. That Christians were also subjects of this second Mnd of election. — 
They became, though in a more special and exalted sense, the chosen 
people, the elect of God. We say, in a more special and exalted sense ; 
because, while the entrance into the Jewish Church was by natural 
birth, the entrance into the Christian Church, properly so called, is by 
faith and a spiritual birth. These terms, therefore, as used in the N~ew 
Testament, have generally respect to true believers. 

This " election " is sometimes applied to particular bodies of Chris- 
tians, as when Peter says, "The Church which is at Babylon, elected 
together with you ;" and sometimes to the whole body of believers in 
every place. To understand its nature, as also the reason of the fre- 
quent use of the term election, it is to be remembered, that in the days 
of the apostles the church state of the Jews, which had continued for 
so many ages, was abrogated. They had been the only visibly 
acknowledged people of God in all the nations of the earth ; but this 
distinguished honor they were about to lose. There was then a new 
election of a new people of God, to be composed of Jews, not by vir- 
tue of their natural descent, but of their faith in Christ, and of believ- 
ing gentiles of all nations, put on equal ground with the believing Jews. 
And there was also a rejection, a reprobation, if the term pleases any 



Chap. V, § 1.] THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION. 391 

one better, but not an absolute one; for the election was offered to 
the Jews first, in every place, by offering them the Gospel. Some 
embraced it, and became the elect people of God, on the new ground of 
faith, instead of the old ground of natural descent ; and therefore the 
apostle (Romans xi, 1) calls the believing part of the Jews "the elec- 
tion," in opposition to those who opposed this " election of grace," and 
still clung to their former and now repealed election as Jews and the 
descendants of Abraham. 

As the Gospel was preached to the whole Jewish nation, they all 
might have united with the one new body of believing Jews and Gen- 
tiles ; but a majority of them made light of it, and refused that elec- 
tion which placed the relation of " the people of God " upon spiritual 
attainments, and offered them only spiritual blessings. They were 
therefore deprived of election and Church relationship of every kind. 
Their temple was destroyed, their political state abolished, their gen- 
ealogies confounded, and their worship annihilated. God's visible 
acknowledgment of them as a Church was withdrawn, and transferred 
to a Church thenceforward to be composed chiefly of Gentiles. 

We see, then, that " the calling " and " the election " of the Christian 
Church, as spoken of in the New Testament, was not the calling and 
the electing of one nation in particular to succeed the Jews ; but it was 
the calling and the electing of believers in all nations, wherever the 
Gospel should be preached, to be in reality what the Jews had been 
but typically, the visible Church of God. 

This second kind of election being thus explained, we may now 
inquire whether anything arises out of it, either as it respects the Jew- 
ish or the Christian Church, which obliges us in any degree to limit the 
explicit declarations of Scripture in regard to the universal extent of 
the intentional benefits of the atonement of Christ. To place this ques- 
tion in its true light we may observe, 

(1.) That this kind of election does not infallibly secure the salvation 
of every elected person. The Jews were elected to be the peculiar 
people and visible Church of God ; but that did not secure the salva- 
tion of every Jew individually. This will be acknowledged by all ; for, 
as the foundation of their Church state was their natural relation to 
Abraham, and as " that which is born of the flesh is flesh," none of 
them could be saved merely by virtue of their being " Jews outwardly." 
The apostle says, that " with many of them God was not well pleased, 
for they were overthrown in the wilderness." He specified that some 
of them were " idolaters," some were " fornicators," some " tempted 
Christ," and that God " sware in his wrath that they should not enter 
into his rest." Yet these were the " chosen," the " elected," and the 
" peculiar people " of God. 

Nor does the election of the Christian Church absolutely secure the 
eternal salvation of those thus elected. That this is true, so far as it 



392 PREDESTINATION. [Book IT. 

regards an election to the external privileges of the Gospel, Calvinists 
themselves will admit ; and that it is also true, as applied to the elec- 
tion of believers to the spiritual as well as to the outward privileges 
of the Gospel, is evident from the numerous warnings given to such 
persons against turning "back unto perdition," making "shipwreck 
of faith," or "departing from the living God." Especially is it evident 
from the language of St. Peter when he exhorts believers to "give 
diligence to make their calling and election sure." For if it had been 
made sure from all eternity their diligence could have no tendency to 
make it sure. We have seen, moreover, in the case of the apostates 
mentioned in Hebrews, that, in point of fact, some of those who had 
thus been actually elected and brought into a state of salvation fell away 
into a condition of utter hopelessness. 

(2.) That this election concludes nothing against the salvability of 
those who are not thus elected. — The election of the Jews as the peculiar 
people of God did not exclude the non-elected Gentiles from the possi- 
bility of salvation. — St. Paul, in the second chapter of his Epistle to the 
Romans, clearly shows us that " the Gentiles, which have not the law," 
may " do by nature (that is, by the assistance which God affords them 
independent of the written law) the things contained in the law ;" and 
that thus acting up to the requirements of " their conscience," they may 
be esteemed as "just before God." That the Gentiles were not pre- 
cluded from all possibility of salvation, is further evident from several 
instances recorded in Scripture of pious heathens ; such as Melchizedek, 
Job, and Cornelius. But the language of Peter ought forever to settle 
this question : " Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of per- 
sons ; "but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteous- 
ness, is accepted with him." Acts x, 34, 35. 

The Calvinistic vieAv of election absolutely precludes the non-elect from 
all possibility of salvation ; but nothing of this kind is implied in the 
collective election of persons to the enjoyment of Gospel privileges. 
Thousands who were not thus elected, or who were not of the Church in 
the days of the apostles, have been brought in in subsequent times. And 
it will not be denied, even by Calvinists themselves, that thousands who 
are not now members of the visible and true Church of Christ may yet 
be called and chosen into that body, and thus partake of an election of 
which while they are notoriously wicked they cannot be the subjects, 
whatever may be the secret purpose of God concerning them. 

(3.) That the election of which we speak, so far from dragging along 
with it Calvinistic reprobation, was intended for the salvation even of 
the non-elect. — The establishment of the true worship in the family of 
Abraham was designed not only to preserve truth, but to diffuse it, 
and to counteract the spread of superstition and idolatry. The miracles 
wrought from age to age among the Jews exalted Jehovah above the 
gods of the heathen. Rays of light from their sacred books and institu- 



Chap. 7, § 1.] THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION. 

tions spread far beyond themselves. The temple of Solomon had its 
court of the Gentiles, and the "stranger" from "a far country" had 
access to it, and enjoyed the right of praying to the true God. Jerusa- 
lem was, in an important sense, literally "the joy of the whole earth ;" 
and in the seed of Abraham " all the families of the earth " have, in some 
degree, been blessed. 

In like manner the election of persons to membership in the Church of 
Christ does not exclude others from an interest in the mercy of God, 
but was designed for their benefit and salvation, that they also may be 
called into the fellowship of the Gospel. Hence, the Church is called 
"the light of the world" and "the salt of the earth." But in what 
sense could this be true if there were no capacity in the world to be 
enlightened and saved ? Yet if such a capacity exists in the world it 
must be derived from the grace of God, and not from nature — a grace 
which can be imparted to the world only in consequence of the death of 
Christ. Thus, we fairly arrive at the conclusion that the election of 
nations or large bodies of people to the enjoyment of peculiar privileges 
affords no support to the doctrine of Calvinian election. 

III. Personal Election, or the election of individuals to be the 
children of God and heirs of eternal life. 

It is not at all disputed between us and those who hold the Calvinistic 
view of election, whether true believers are called the elect with refer- 
ence to their individual state and individual relation to God as his peo- 
ple. Such passages as " the elect of God," " chosen of God," " elect 
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and many others, 
we allow to be descriptive of an act of grace in favor of certain persons 
considered individually. 

What, then, is the import of that act of grace which we call personal 
election to eternal life f It is not the choosing of individuals to perform 
some special and particular service, which is the first kind of election 
mentioned ; nor is it that collective election to religious privileges and a 
visible Church state on which we have more largely dwelt. For though 
"the elect" have an interest in this election, individually, as parts of 
the collective body, yet many others have the same advantages who 
still remain in sin and unbelief. But those who are properly called 
" the elect " have been made partakers of the grace and saving 
efficacy of the Gospel. " Many," says our Lord, " are called, but few 

CHOSEN." 

What true personal election is we may learn from the sacred Scrip- 
tures. It is explained by our Lord where he says to his disciples, " I 
have chosen you out of the world." John xv, 19. It is explained by St. 
Paul when he says, " God hath from the beginning chosen you to salva- 
tion, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Thess. 
ii, 13. It is also explained by St. Peter when he says of his Christian 
brethren that they are " elect, according to the foreknowledge of God 



394 PREDESTINATION. [Book IV. 

the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and 
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter i, 2. 

To this scriptural view of the doctrine of personal election we most 
heartily subscribe ; but when it is contended that God has, from all 
eternity, chosen to salvation a definite number of men, not upon fore- 
sight of faith, obedience, or anything else in them as a cause or condi- 
tion of their being chosen, but unto faith, obedience, and holiness, the 
doctrine presents itself under a very different aspect, and requires an 
appeal to the word of God. 

This view of election unfolds three leading points: 1. It is eternal y 
2. It is the choosing of a determinate number which cannot be increased 
or diminished ; and, 3. It is unconditional. Let us briefly examine each 
of these particulars. 

1. It is .assumed that men are elected to everlasting life from all eter- 
nity. — This is a position which we cannot admit, except so far as the fore- 
knowledge of God, and his purpose to choose men in time, may be 
termed election. To suppose that actual election can be " from all eter- 
nity," is manifestly absurd. To elect signifies to choose, which implies 
an act of the mind ; and every act implies a time in which it took place, 
and, consequently, a time before it took place. Hence, unless we make 
the act of election an essential part of the Divine nature (which would be 
absurd) it cannot be eternal ; for the attribute of eternity will properly 
apply to the Divine essence only. 

Again, the eternity of actual election is not only absurd in itself, 
but it is contrary to Scripture. Here we are taught, not only that it is 
an act of God done in time, but also that it takes place subsequent to the 
administration of the means of salvation. The " calling " goes before 
the " election," and men are elected or chosen through " belief of the 
truth," the " sanctification of the Spirit," and the " sprinkling of the 
blood of Jesus Christ." The doctrine of eternal election is thus brought 
down to its true meaning. The phrase "eternal election," and "eternal 
decree of election," so often in the lips of Calvinists, can, therefore, in 
common sense, mean only an eternal purpose, or a purpose formed in 
eternity, to elect or choose men out of the world, and to sanctify them 
in time — a doctrine this which we will not dispute. 

2. It is claimed that this election consists in the choosing of a determi- 
nate number. — This notion rests upon the basis of mere inference ; for 
there is not a text of Scripture which declares that a fixed and determ- 
inate number of men are elected to eternal life. But while there is no 
Scripture in favor of the opinion, there is much against it ; and to this 
test it must therefore be brought. 

We have before shown that eternal election can only mean a purpose 
formed in eternity of electing in time. But of God's eternal purpose to 
elect we can know nothing except from his own revelation. We take, 
then, the matter on this ground. A purpose to elect is a purpose to save ; 



Chap. 7, § 1.] THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION. 395 

and when it is declared that God is " not willing that any should perish," 
but " will have all men to be saved," either we must say that his will is 
contrary to his purpose, which would be to charge God foolishly, or it 
agrees with his purpose. If the latter, his purpose to save was not con- 
fined to a determinate number of men, but extended to all who should 
believe that they might be elected and saved. 

Again, we have shown that Christ died for all men, that all through 
him might be saved. But if he died in order to their salvation through 
faith, he died in order to their election through faith ; and God must 
have purposed this from eternity. 

Further, in that Gospel which is to be preached " to every creature," 
Christ has declared, " He that believeth shall be saved, but he that 
believeth not shall be damned." This is an unquestionable decree of 
God in time ; and if he is unchangeable, it was his decree, in regard to 
this matter, from all eternity. But this decree cannot be reconciled 
with the doctrine of an eternal purpose to elect only a determinate num- 
ber of men. For, if those who believe not " shall be damned," it must 
be possible for them to believe and be saved. To admit this is to give 
up the doctrine that the number of the elect " is so certain and definite 
that it cannot be increased." To deny it is to allow that God commands 
his creatures to do what is utterly impossible, and then punishes them 
with eternal damnation for not doing it. If the reason of men's condem- 
nation lies in themselves, and not in the want of sufficient means to save 
them, as we have shown in a former chapter, then the number of the 
elect might be increased. And if it is true, as the Scriptures evidently 
teach, that those for whom Christ died may " perish," and that true 
believers may " draw back unto perdition," and fall into a state in which 
it were " better for them not to have known the way of righteousness," 
then the number of the elect may be diminished. 

3. It is held that election to eternal life is unconditional. — It is a 
gracious act of God in choosing a definite number of men, " without any 
foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any 
other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto." 

We have already seen that actual election from eternity is impossible, 
and that, therefore, election must be either God's purpose in eternity to 
elect in time, or actual election in time. To affirm that in purpose men 
were elected from eternity, " without foresight of faith or good works," 
is to say, that from eternity God purposed to constitute his Church of 
persons to whose faith and obedience he had no respect. He eternally 
purposed to make Peter, James, and John members of his Church, with- 
out respect to their faith or obedience, or anything else in them. His 
Church is, therefore, constituted on the sole principle of this purpose, not 
on the basis of faith and obedience ; and the persons chosen into it in 
time, are chosen because they are included in this eternal purpose. 

How manifestly this scheme opposes the Word of God we need 



896 PEE DESTINATION. [Book IV. 

scarcely stay to point out. It contradicts that specific distinction which 
is constantly made in Scripture between the true Church and the world, 
the only marks of distinction being, as to the former, faith and obedience, 
and as to the latter, unbelief and disobedience; in other words, the 
Church is composed not merely of men, as Peter, James, and John ; but 
of Peter, James, and John as obedient believers ; while all who believe 
not and obey not are of "the world." Thus the Scriptures make the 
essential elements of the Church to be believing and obeying men ; but 
the theory in question makes them to be men in the simple condition 
of being included in a determinate number, chosen without any respect 
to faith and obedience. 

This view of election contradicts also the history of the commence- 
ment and first constitution of the Church of Christ. Peter, James, and 
John did not become disciples of Christ in unbelief and disobedience. 
The very act of their becoming his disciples unequivocally implied some 
degree both of faith and obedience. They were chosen, not as men, 
but as believing men. This is indicated also by the grand rite of bap- 
tism, the initiating ordinance into the Christian Church ; for in order to 
this, a previous faith is always required. We see, therefore, that men 
are chosen out of the world, and chosen into the Church with respect to 
their faith. But if actual election in time has respect to faith, God's 
eternal purpose in regard to election must have had respect to faith also, 
unless it can be shown that this purpose is at variance with actual 
election. 

It is true, we are told that election is " unto faith and obedience." 
But we have no such doctrine in the Scriptures as the election of indi- 
viduals unto faith, and it is inconsistent with several passages which 
expressly speak of personal election. See 1 Peter i, 2 : " Elect, accord- 
ing to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the 
Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 
Here we are clearly taught that the work of the Spirit which produces 
obedience, and the " sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," are the 
media through which our election is effected. Obedience, then, is not 
the end of election, but of the " sanctification of the Spirit." N"or can 
election be unto faith ; for we are elected through the " sprinkling of 
the blood of Jesus Christ," which, in all cases, is apprehended by faith. 

Very similar to this passage is 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14: "God hath from 
the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the 
Spirit and belief of the truth ; whereunto he called you. by our Gospel." 
When Calvinistic commentators interpret the phrase, " from the begin- 
ning," to mean from all eternity, they make a gratuitous assumption 
which has nothing in the scope of the passage to warrant it. The Thes- 
salonians were elected " through sanctification of the Spirit and belief 
of the truth ;" and to this sanctification and faith they were called by 
the Gospel. But if sanctification and faith are means of election, as is 



Chap. T, § 1.] THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION. 397 

here taught, election cannot be "unto faith and obedience." It is an 
election through faith and obedience ; or, in other words, a choice of 
obedient believers into the family of God. 

In proof of the doctrine that personal election is unto faith and obedi- 
ence, Calvinists rely mainly upon Ephesians i, 4, 5, 6 : "According as 
he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we 
should be holy and without blame before him in love : having predesti- 
nated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, 
according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of 
his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." The con- 
text, however, bears unequivocal proof that the apostle is here speaking, 
not of personal but of collective election to Gospel privileges. Hence, 
he speaks of election as the means of the personal salvation of the 
Ephesians, and of their salvation as the end of election or predestination, 
an order which is reversed when the election of individuals, or of any 
body of believers considered distributively and personally, is the subject 
of discourse. 

To be convinced that the passage has no reference to personal elec- 
tion, we need only follow the apostle's argument. He speaks first of 
the election of Christians in general, whether Jews or Gentiles ; using 
the pronouns " us " and " we " as comprehending himself and all others. 
He then proceeds to the "predestination" of those "who first trusted 
in Christ," plainly meaning himself and other believing Jews. He goes 
on to say, that the Ephesians were made partakers of the same faith, 
and, therefore, were the subjects of the same election and predestination: 
" in whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth." He 
then informs us that the preaching of this truth to them as Gentiles, by 
himself and his coadjutors, was in consequence of God's " having made 
known unto them the mystery of his will, that in the dispensation of the 
fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ." 
This, in the next chapter, a manifest continuation of the same subject, is 
explained to mean the calling in of the Gentiles with the believing Jews, 
reconciling "both unto God in one body by the cross." He pur- 
sues the same subject in the third chapter also, representing this 
union of believing Jews and Gentiles in one Church as the revelation 
of that mystery which had been hid " from the beginning of the world ;" 
but was now manifested " according to the eternal purpose which he 
purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

Here, then, we have the true meaning of the election and predestina- 
tion of the Ephesians spoken of in the opening of the Epistle. It was 
their election, as Gentiles, to be, along with the believing Jews, the 
Church of God, his acknowledged people on earth ; which election 
was, " according to the eternal purpose " of God, to change the consti- 
tution of his Church, to establish it on the ground of faith in Christ, 
and thus to extend it into all nations. So far as this respected the 



398 PREDESTINATION. [Book IV. 

Ephesians in general, their election to hear the Gospel sooner than many- 
other Gentiles was unconditional and sovereign, and was an election 
"unto faith and obedience ;" that is to say, these were the ends of that 
election. But so far as they were concerned individually they were 
actually chosen into the Church of Christ as its vital members on their 
believing. So, then, election to the saving benefits of the Gospel was a 
consequence of their faith, and not the cause of it, and was, therefore, 
conditional. " In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word 
of truth, the Gospel of your salvation ; in whom also, after that ye 
believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." 

The Calvinistic doctrine of election unto faith has no stronger passage 
than this to lean upon for support, and this manifestly fails them ; while 
other passages in which the terms election and chosen occur all favor a 
very different view of the subject. When we are commanded to be 
diligent " to make our calling and election sure," it is evidently implied 
that it may be rendered nugatory by want of diligence, a doctrine 
which cannot comport with the Calvinistic theory of election. When 
believers are called " a chosen generation," they are also called " a royal 
priesthood, a holy nation ;" and if the latter characteristics depend upon 
faith, and are consequences of it, so the former depends upon a previous 
faith, and is the consequence of it. 

Finally, in all the passages of Scripture in which these terms relate to 
the Christian experience of individuals, the previous condition of faith 
is either expressed or necessarily implied ; and though such passages are 
comparatively few, there are many others which embody the same doc- 
trine in different terms. The phrases to be "in Christ" and to be 
" Cheist's" are doubtless equivalent to the personal election of believers. 
Though these and similar modes of expression are constantly occurring 
in the New Testament, indicative of a personal and saving relation to 
Christ, yet no one is ever represented as being taken into this relation 
by an eternal election unto faith ; but, on the contrary, through personal 
faith alone. The Scriptures know no such distinctions as elect believers 
and elect unbelievers / but all unbelievers are represented as being "of 
the world," under " the wrath of God," and liable to eternal ruin. But 
if Calvinistic election is true, then there are elect unbelievers, and with 
respect to these the Scriptures are contradicted. They cannot be "of 
the world," though now in a state of unbelief; since, from all eternity, 
they were chosen " out of the world." They are not under " the wrath 
of God," for they are the objects of an eternal and unchangeable love. 
They cannot be liable to eternal ruin, for God has decreed to bestow upon 
them, unconditionally, everlasting life. In regard to them, therefore, the 
threatenings of God are without meaning; and to suppose the Holy 
Spirit to " convince them of sin " and of danger, is to adopt the mon- 
strous conclusion that he is employed in exciting fears which have no 
foundation. 



Chap. 7, § 2.] THE DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION. 



§ 2. The Doctrine of Reprobation. 

The doctrine of the election to eternal life of only a certain number of 
men, necessarily involves the absolute and unconditional reprobation of 
all the rest. Let us, then, inquire into the nature of this Divine act of 
reprobation as it is understood by Calvinists themselves. In the lan- 
guage of the Westminster Confession it is stated thus : " The rest of 
mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his 
own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, 
for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and 
to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his 
glorious justice." 

We have a more extended and very clear statement of this doctrine 
in the language of Dr. Hill. "From the election of certain persons," 
says he, " it necessarily follows that all the rest of the race of Adam are 
left in guilt and misery. The exercise of the Divine sovereignty in 
regard to those who are not elected is called reprobation ; and the con- 
dition of all having been originally the same, reprobation is called abso- 
lute in the same sense with election. In reprobation there are two acts 
which the Calvinists are careful to distinguish. The one is called pre- 
tention, the passing by of those who are not elected, and withholding 
from them those means of grace which are provided for the elect. The 
other is called condemnation, the act of condemning those who have 
been passed by for the sins which they commit. In the former act 
God exercises his good pleasure, dispensing his benefits as he will; 
in the latter act he appears as a judge, inflicting upon men that sentence 
which their sins deserve. If he had bestowed upon them the same 
assistance which he prepared for others they would have been preserved 
from that sentence ; but as their sins proceeded from their own corrup- 
tion, they are thereby rendered worthy of punishment, and the justice 
of the Supreme Ruler is manifested in condemning them, as his mercy 
is manifested in saving the elect." * 

Regarding these authorities as a clear and faithful exposition of Calvin- 
ian reprobation, we may feel ourselves safe in concluding that it involves 
the two following propositions : 1 . That God, from all eternity, unchange- 
ably foreordained a definite number of the human family to everlasting 
death ; and, 2. That this decree of reprobation is absolute and uncondi- 
tional — resting on no other ground than the mere sovereignty of God. 
That the first of these propositions is fairly contained in the theory no 
one will deny ; and that the second is also may be established by the 
testimony of Calvinistic divines. Dr. Dick, in arguing that the ground 
of reprobation is not in men's moral character, reasons thus : "Although 
their fall is presupposed to their reprobation, it will appear that the former 
* Hill's Lectures, book 4, chap. 7, sec. 3. 



400 PKEDESTINATTON. [Book IV. 

was not the reason of the latter, if we recollect that those who were 
chosen to salvation were exactly in the same situation. Both classes 
appeared in the eyes of God to be guilty, polluted, and worthy of death. 
Their sinfulness, therefore, could not be the reason of rejection in the 
one case, since it did not cause rejection in the other. If it was the reason 
why some were passed by, it would have been a reason why all should be 
passed by. As, then, it did not hinder the election of some, it could not 
be the cause which hindered the election of others. As the moral state 
of all was the same, it could not be the cause of the difference in their des- 
tination. If there was sin in the reprobate, there was sin also in the elect, 
and we must therefore resolve their opposite allotment into the will of 
God, who gives and withholds his favor according to his pleasure."* 

Having thus stated the Calvinistic view in regard to the awful subject 
of eternal and unconditional reprobation, we feel ourselves called upon 
to record our most hearty dissent from any such doctrine. It is not 
only unsupported by a single passage of inspired truth, rightly inter- 
preted, but it is obviously incompatible both with the character of God 
as it is revealed in his word, and with many declarations of Scripture. 
It cannot, we may confidently affirm, be reconciled, 

1. To the wisdom of God. For the bringing into existence of a vast 
number of intelligent creatures under a necessity of sinning and of being 
eternally lost, teaches no moral lesson to the world ; while it contradicts 
all those notions of wisdom in the ends and processes of government 
which we derive, not only from natural reason, but from the Scriptures. 

2. Nor can this doctrine be reconciled to the Divine benevolence. 
" God is love." He " is good to all ; and his tender mercies are 
over all his works." He has " no pleasure in the death of him that 
dieth." "The Lord is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any 
should perish, but that all should come to repentance." But in opposition 
to this scriptural view of the Divine benevolence, the doctrine of repro- 
bation is that God takes pleasure in the eternal destruction of his moral 
creatures. According to Calvinism, he might save those whom he 
dooms to everlasting death upon the veiy same principle that he saves 
the elect. For, as Dr. Hill says, " If he had bestowed upon them the 
sa$ie assistance which he prepared for others, they would have been pre- 
served from that sentence." Hence the theory clearly implies that God 
would rather damn many of his helpless creatures than save them. 

3. Equally impossible is it to reconcile this notion to the sincerity 
of God in offering salvation to all men through Jesus Christ, since it 
supposes that there are many whom he never designed to save. The 
Gospel, as we have seen, is to be preached " to every creature ;" and is, 
from its very nature, an offer of salvation to every man. But to assume 
that God has determined, by an unalterable decree, that many to whom 
he offers salvation, and whom he invites to receive it, shall never be 

* Dick's Theology, Lecture 36. 



Chap. 7, § 2.] THE DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION. 401 

saved, and that he will consider their sins aggravated by their rejection 
of that Gospel which they never could receive, and which he never 
designed them to receive, involves a reflection upon his truth and sin- 
cerity at which men ought to shudder. 

It is no answer to this to say that God offers his mercy to many, 
knowing, by virtue of his prescience, that they will not receive it. We 
grant this ; but, not now to enter upon the question of foreknowledge, 
it is enough to reply that here there is no insincerity. On the Calvinis- 
tic scheme the offer of salvation is made to those for whom Christ made 
no atonement ; but on ours he made atonement for all. On the former 
the offer is made to those whom God never designed to embrace it ; 
but on ours it is the will of God that all to whom the offer is made 
should embrace it. ' On their theory the bar to the salvation of the 
non-elect lies in the want of a provided sacrifice for sin ; while on ours 
it rests solely in men themselves. One is, therefore, consistent with a 
perfect sincerity of offer ; but the other cannot be maintained without 
bringing the sincerity of God into question, and fixing a stigma upon 
his moral truth.. 

4. It is manifestly contrary to Divine justice. God himself has 
appealed to those established notions of justice and equity which 
obtained among all enlightened persons as the measure and rule of his 
own. " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right f " Are not my 
ways equal f We may conclude, therefore, that justice and equity in 
God are what they are taken to be among reasonable men. If a 
sovereign should condemn to death a number of his subjects for not 
obeying a law which it is absolutely impossible for them to obey, and 
should require them, on pain of aggravated punishment, to do something 
in order to the pardon of their offenses, which he knows they cannot 
do, say to stop the tide or to remove a mountain ; would not all men 
everywhere condemn such a procedure as most contrary to justice and 
right ? 

But Calvinistic reprobation implies a charge as obviously and awfully 
unjust against God. It supposes him to pass by and reject men with- 
out any avoidable fault of their own, and to destroy them by the sim- 
ple rule of his own sovereignty; or, in other words, to show that he has 
power to do it. In whatever light the subject may be viewed, no fault, 
in any right construction, can be chargeable upon the persons so punished, 
or, as we may rather say, destroyed, since punishment supposes a judi- 
cial proceeding which this act shuts out. For either the reprobates are 
destroyed for a pure reason of sovereignty without any reference to 
their sinfulness, and thus all criminality is left out of the question, or 
they are destroyed for the sin of Adam, to which they were not con- 
senting ; or for personal faults resulting from an innate corruption of 
nature, which God wills not to correct, and which they themselves have 
no power to correct. 

26 



402 PREDESTINATION". [Book IV. 

To say that reprobates are doomed to " dishonor and wrath for their 
sin" is a mere subterfuge to conceal the deformity of the " horrible 
decree ;" for, according to Calvinism, their doom was fixed from all eter- 
nity before they had committed any sin. To say that reprobates are 
doomed to " dishonor and wrath for their sin," has in it the sound of 
justice, and seems to some extent to cover up the deformities of repro- 
bation. But the question arises, Was not their sin as much included in 
the Divine purpose as their final doom ? It certainly was, if it is indeed 
true that God did " freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes 
to pass." It follows, therefore, that reprobates can no more avoid the 
sin for which they are doomed to wrath than they can overturn the 
Divine decree ; and that there is really no reason for their eternal 
destruction but the sovereign will of God. 

Another expedient by which this doctrine is kept in countenance is, 
to represent the decree of reprobation as having respect to men in their 
fallen and sinful state. " God found men in sin," says Dr. Dick, " and 
in leaving them there he did no wrong, and was chargeable with no 
cruelty."* This might indeed be allowed, if the purpose of God had 
nothing to do with man previous to his fall, and if men were involved 
in their fallen and sinful condition by their own personal and avoidable 
transgressions. But if these are not admitted the argument is a mere 
sophism. The true state of the case is this : Can God bring men into 
existence in a fallen and sinful state, and under circumstances which 
render their actual transgression unavoidable; can he withhold from 
them the only means by which it is possible for them to be saved from 
their sinful condition, and then justly punish them with everlasting 
misery for their unavoidable transgressions ? Such is the course of 
procedure which the doctrine of unconditional reprobation ascribes to 
God; but as it is obviously contrary to every one's sense of justice, it 
proves the doctrine to be false. 

5. The doctrine of absolute reprobation destroys the end of punitive 
justice. That end can only be to deter men from sin, and to add 
strength to the law of God. But if reprobates are left to the influence 
of their fallen nature without any remedy, they cannot be deterred from 
sin by threats of inevitable punishment, nor can they ever submit to the 
dominion of the Divine law. Their doom is fixed, and threats and 
examples can avail nothing. 

6. This doctrine cannot be reconciled with the apostle's declaration, 
that " God is no respecter of persons." This passage, we grant, is 

.not to be interpreted as though the bounties of the Almighty were dis- 
pensed in equal measure to all. In the administration of favor there is 
room for the exercise of that prerogative which, in a just sense, is called 
the sovereignty of God. Justice, however, knows only one rule ; it is 
in its nature settled and fixed, and respects not the person but the case. 

* Dick's Theology, Lecture 36. 



Chap. 8.] JUSTIFICATION. 403 

The phrase to respect persons, when it refers to judicial proceedings, 
signifies to judge frofai partiality or affection, and not from the merits 
of the case. It is used by St. Peter with reference to the acceptance of 
Cornelius, where it evidently means to accept or reject men, not on the 
ground of moral qualities, but on some prejudice or partiality which 
forms no moral rule. 

If from eternity men are loved or hated, elected or reprobated, before 
they have done either " good or evil," then it necessarily follows that 
there is precisely this kind of respect of persons with God ; for his 
acceptance or rejection of them cannot be resolved into any moral rule. 
But Scripture affirms that there is no such respect of persons with God, 
and, therefore, the doctrine which implies it is contradicted by inspired 
authority. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

JUSTIFICATION. 



Having discussed the subject of the atonement at some considerable 
length, and having presented and defended the doctrine, that by this 
wonderful expedient of the Divine benevolence salvation is made possi- 
ble to all men, we come now to examine some of the leading benefits 
which are derived to man "through the redemption that is in Jesus 
Christ." 

When we speak of benefits received by the human race in conse- 
quence of the atonement of Christ, the truth is, that man having for- 
feited good of every kind, and even life itself, by his transgression, all 
that remarks to him more than evil in the natural world, and in the 
dispensations of general and particular Providence, as well as all spirit- 
ual blessings put within his reach by the Gospel, are to be considered as 
the fruits of the death and intercession of Christ, and ought to be grate- 
fully acknowledged as such. 

We now, however, speak in particular of those benefits which imme- 
diately relate to what in Scripture is called our salvation, or in which 
this salvation consists. By this term is meant the deliverance of man 
from the penalty, dominion, and pollution of his sins ; his introduction 
into the Divine favor in this life, and his future and eternal felicity in 
the life to come. The sum of this salvation, so far as it regards a 
qualification for eternal life, consists in justification, regeneration, adop- 
tion, and sanctification. But before we enter upon a particular discus- 
sion of each of these gracious benefits we will offer a few preliminary 
remarks. And, 



404 JUSTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

1. The grand object of our redemption was to accomplish human 
salvation ; and the first effect of Christ's atonement, whether antici- 
pated before his coming, as " the Lamb slain from the founda- 
tion of the world," or when effected by his passion, was to place 
man in that new relation from which salvation might be derived to the 
offender. 

The only relation in which an offended sovereign and a guilty subject 
can stand in mere justice, is that of a judge and a convicted criminal. 
But the new relation effected by the death of Christ is, as to God, that 
of an offended sovereign having devised honorable means to suspend 
the execution of the penalty of death, and to offer terms of pardon to 
the condemned ; and, as to man, that of an offender having assurance 
of the placableness of God, his readiness to forgive all his offenses, and 
that he may, by the use of the prescribed means, actually obtain this 
favor. But, 

2. To this is to be added another consideration. God is not merely 
disposed to forgive the offenses of men upon their application ; but the 
Scriptures ascribed to his compassion an affecting activity. The atone- 
ment of Christ having made it morally practicable for God to exercise 
mercy, he pours that mercy forth in ardent and ceaseless efforts to 
accomplish his gracious purposes ; and, not content with waiting the 
return of men in penitence and prayer, he employs various means to 
awaken them to a due sense of their fallen and endangered condition, 
and to prompt and influence them, sometimes even with mighty efficacy, 
to seek his grace and favor. This activity of the love of God to man 
displays itself, 

(1.) In the variety of the Divine dispensations. — That providential 
arrangement which is seen in the mixed and checkered circumstances 
of human life is to be attributed to this design ; and viewed under this 
aspect, it throws an interesting light upon the condition of man. By 
many the infliction of labor, and sorrow, and disappointment upon fallen 
man, and the shortening of the term of human life, are considered chiefly, 
if not exclusively, as measures adopted to prevent evil, or to restrain its 
overflow in society. Such ends are, doubtless, by the wisdom of God, 
thus effected to a great and beneficial extent ; but there is a still higher 
design. These dispensations are not only instruments of prevention, but 
designed means of salvation, co-operating with those agencies by which 
that result can only be directly produced. 

(2.) In a revelation of the will of God, and a declaration of his 
purposes of grace. — These purposes have been declared to man with 
great inequality, we grant, a mystery which we are not able to explain; 
but we have the testimony of God in his own word, that in no case, 
that in no nation, has " he left himself without witness." To the Jews 
he was pleased to give a written record of his will ; and the possession 
of this in its perfect evangelical form has become the distinguished 



Chap. 8.] JUSTIFICATION. 405 

privilege of all Christian nations who are now exerting themselves to 
make the blessing universal. 

By this direct benefit of the atonement of Christ, the law under which 
we are all placed is exhibited in its full, though reproving perfection ; 
the character of " Him with whom we have to do " is unvailed ; and 
the redeeming acts of our Saviour are recorded. Here his example, his 
sufferings and death, his resurrection, his intercession, the terms of our 
pardon, the process of our regeneration, the bright and attractive path 
of obedience, are all presented to our meditations; and surmounting 
the whole is that " immortality " which has been brought " to light 
through the Gospel." 

(3.) In the institution of the Christian ministry. — To the great 
religious advantage of a Divine revelation we are to add the appoint- 
ment of men, who have themselves been reconciled to God, to preach 
the word of reconciliation to others. It is made their duty to study the 
word of God themselves ; faithfully and affectionately to administer it 
to persons of all conditions, and in every place to which they can have 
access ; and thus, by a constant activity, to keep the light of truth before 
the eyes of men, and to impress it upon their conscience. 

(4.) In the influences of the Holy Spirit. — It is the constant doctrine 
of the Scriptures, that men are not left to the mere influence of a revela- 
tion of truth and the means of salvation, but are graciously excited and 
effectually aided in all their endeavors to avail themselves of both. 
Before the flood the Holy Spirit strove with men to restrain them from 
wickedness, and to lead them to repentance. He strove with them 
under the law; for the wicked are said to have resisted "the Holy 
Ghost." The moral effects flowing from Messiah's dominion are 
ascribed by the prophets to the pouring out of the Spirit as rain upon 
the parched ground, and as the opening of rivers in the desert. 

In our Lord's discourse with Mcodemus he declares that the regener- 
ate man is " born of the Spirit." It is by the Spirit that he represents 
himself as carrying on the work of human salvation after his return to 
heaven ; and in this sense he promises to be with his disciples, " even 
unto the end of the world." In accordance with this, the apostles 
ascribed the success of their preaching, in producing moral changes in 
the hearts of men, to the same Divine influence. It is the Spirit that 
gives life to the dead souls of men ; the moral virtues are called " the 
fruits of the Spirit ;" and to be "led by the Spirit" is made the proof 
of our being the sons of God. 

To this operation, this working of God in man in conjunction with 
the written and preached word and other means of grace, is to be 
attributed that view of the spiritual nature of the law under which we 
are placed, and the extent of its demands, which produces conviction of 
sin, and at once annihilates all self-righteousness, and all palliations of 
offense; which withers the goodly show of supposititious virtues, and 



406 JUSTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

brings the convicted transgressor, whatever his character may be before 
men, to say before God, "Behold, I am vile, what shall I answer 
thee ?" or with the publican to exclaim, a God be merciful to me a 
sinner !" 

That which every such awakened sinner needs is mercy — the remission 
of his sins and consequent exemption from their penalty. It is only this 
that can take him from under the malediction of the law which he has 
violated, and bring him into a state of reconciliation with God. This 
act of mercy is, in the New Testament, called justification, to the con- 
sideration of which doctrine we will now direct our attention. This 
will lead us, 1. To inquire into its nature; 2. To show how it may be 
obtained; and, 3. To meet some objections that are urged against our 
view of the doctrine. 



§ 1. The Nature of Justification. 

I. Justification may be defined to be an act of God's free grace, by 
which he absolves a sinner from guilt and punishment and accepts him 
as righteous on account of the atonement of Christ. 

The original term rendered justification in the New Testament is 
dwai&oLc, which means absolution,. acquittal, remission of sin. The verb 
is dcfca^a), which signifies to judge, to render sentence, to pronounce just. 
To justify, then, in the Bible acceptation of the term, is to acquit by a 
judicial sentence or decision. The term is evidently forensic, having 
reference to law and judicial proceedings ; and in this sense justification 
may take place in three different ways : 

1. A person may be arraigned at the bar of justice to answer to a 
specific accusation, but on examination of the testimony in the case it 
may appear that he is not guilty of the crime alleged against him. Here 
he is justified by the force of testimony, and the law acquits him by 
declaring the charge to be unfounded ; or, in the language of Scripture, 
by " bringing forth his righteousness as the noonday." 

2. A person may be arraigned before the bar of justice to answer to a 
certain accusation, and it may appear in the course of investigation that 
though the evidence clearly establishes the fact on which the charge is 
founded, yet the fact itself is contrary to no law. In this case he is jus- 
tified by the force of law, and a correct administration will so declare 
the decision. 

3. A man may be arraigned before his proper tribunal for a specified 
crime, tried, and condemned ; but the person in whose hands the admin- 
istration of justice and mercy is lodged may remit the penalty. Here he 
is justified on the principle of pardon. 

A person may be justified in a civil sense, according to any of these 
three plans. But in a scriptural sense, no man can be justified either 
by the force of testimony or the force of law ; for all men stand justly 



Chap. 8, § 1.] ITS NATURE. 407 

charged with the violation of God's holy law, and condemned to suffer 
its penalty. The Bible declares that " all have sinned ;" that " all the 
world are guilty before God ;" and that " the soul that sinneth it shall 
die." It follows, therefore, that if any man obtains justification it must 
be on the ground of pardon. This is the only door of hope to our 
fallen and guilty race ; but it is one which is thrown open to every sin- 
ner by Him who " tasted death for every man." 

II. Let us now inquire more particularly into the nature of that jus- 
tification on the ground of pardon which the Scriptures unfold. " To 
justify a sinner," says Dr. Bunting, in an able sermon on this important 
subject, "is to account and consider him relatively righteous, and to 
deal with him as such, notwithstanding his past unrighteousness, by 
clearing, absolving, discharging, and releasing him from various penal 
evils, and especially from the wrath of God, and the liability to eternal 
death, which by that past unrighteousness he had deserved ; and by 
accepting him as if just, and admitting him to the state, the privileges, 
and the rewards of righteousness." Hence, it appears that justifica- 
tion and the remission or forgiveness of sin are substantially the 
same. 

It is clearly established by the language of the New Testament that 
justification, the pardon or remission of sins, the non-imputation of sin, 
and the imputation of righteousness, are terms and phrases of the same 
import. In proof of this the following passages of Scripture may be 
consulted : 

Luke xviii, 14: "This man went down to his house justified rather 
than the other." Here the term "justified" must be taken in the sense 
of pardon, since the publican confessed himself to be " a sinner," and in 
this relation prayed for mercy. 

Acts xiii, 38, 39 : " Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, 
that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins ; 
and by him all that believe are justified from all things." Here, also, it 
is plain that forgiveness of sins and justification mean the same thing, 
one term being used as explanatory of the other. 

Rom. iv, 5-8 : " To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that 
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness : even as 
David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth 
righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities 
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom 
the Lord will not impute sin." This passage shows clearly that the 
apostle considered justification, the imputing of righteousness, the for- 
giveness of iniquities, the covering of sin, and the non-imputation of sin, 
as of the same import. They are acts substantially equivalent one to 
another, and they are therefore expressed by convertible terms, though 
under views somewhat different. 

It is abundantly evident, then, from these passages of Scripture, and 



408 JUSTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

from many others that might be adduced, that the justification of a sin- 
ner before God is to be understood in the sense of pardon or "the remis- 
sion of sins /" and the importance of acquiring and of maintaining this 
simple and distinct view of the subject will appear from the following 
considerations : 

1. The pardon of sin is not an act of mere prerogative, done above 
laid, hut a judicial process, done consistent with law. — For in this 
transaction there are three parties : God as sovereign ; " It is God 
that justifieth." Christ as advocate ; not to defend the guilty, but to 
intercede for them. " If any man sin, we have an advocate with the 
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." The third party is man, who is, 
by his own confession, guilty, sinful, and ungodly ; for that repentance 
which in all cases precedes the remission of sins is a confession both of 
offense and desert of punishment. But as justification does not take 
place except through the propitiation and intercession of Jesus Christ, 
and on condition, on the part of the guilty, of faith in his sacrificial 
death, it is not an act of mere mercy or prerogative, but one which is con- 
sistent with a perfectly righteous government and with the justice 
of God. 

2. Jiistification has respect to particular individuals. — It is therefore 
to be distinguished from " that gracious constitution of God, by which, 
for the sake of Jesus Christ, he so far delivers all mankind from the 
guilt of Adam's sin as to place them in a salvable state. Justification 
is a blessing of a much higher and more perfect character, and is not 
common to the human race at large, but experienced by a certain descrip- 
tion of persons in particular."* It is therefore a subject of personal 
concern, personal prayer, and personal seeking ; and it is to be person- 
ally experienced. Nor can any one be safe in trusting to that general 
gracious constitution under which all men are placed, since that was 
established in order to the personal and particular justification of those 
who believe. 

3. Justification being a sentence of pardon, the Antinomian notion 
of eterncd justification becomes a manifest absurdity. — It supposes the 
grant of pardon before man was created, when no sin had been com- 
mitted, no law published, no Saviour promised, no faith exercised, which 
is not only absurd but impossible. If it be said that the sentence was 
passed in eternity, but manifested in time, we might as well argue that 
the world was created from eternity, and that the work of creation in 
the beginning of time was only a manifestation of that which was from 
everlasting. 

Moreover, it is " the ungodly who are justified ;" and, therefore, guilt 

precedes pardon. But a state of justification is incompatible with a 

state of guilt ; so that the advocates of this wild notion must either give 

up justification in eternity, or a state of condemnation in time. If they 

* Bunting on Justification. 



Chap. 8, § 1.] HOW OBTAINED. 409 

hold the former, they contradict common-sense ; if they deny the latter, 
they deny the Scriptures. 

4. Justification being the pardon of sin, it is not a work by vj/iich 
we are made actually just or righteous. — It changes our relation to law, 
it removes condemnation, but it does not change our nature or make us 
holy. " This is sanctifi cation ; which is, indeed, in some degree the 
immediate fruit of justification ; but, nevertheless, is a distinct gift of 
God, and of a totally different nature. The one implies what God 
c does for us ' through his Son; the other, what he 'works in us' by 
his Spirit. So that, although some rare instances may be found wherein 
the term justified or justification is used in so wide a sense as to 
include sanctification also, yet in general use they are sufficiently 
distinguished from each other both by St. Paul and the other inspired 
writers."* 

Keeping in view, then, what has been said in regard to the nature of 
justification, it will not be difficult to distinguish between this blessing 
and the work of regeneration, which, properly speaking, is sanctifica- 
tion in its incipient stage. By justification we are released from the 
guilt and the penalty of past offenses ; but by regeneration we are made 
new creatures, being "created in Christ Jesus unto good works," that 
we may " go in peace, and sin no more." 

We are not to conclude, however, because God justifies us " freely 
by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ," that our 
past offenses are less odious in his sight than they were previous to our 
justification. Pardon cannot change the nature of sin ; nor can God 
ever view it in any other than its true character. By no fiction of law 
can it be supposed that God ever looks upon sin as not being sin, or 
that he ever regards the pardoned offender as having never transgressed 
his commandments. The justified man is, therefore, still viewed as 
having sinned, though now graciously forgiven ; nor will this fact be 
forgotten even by the redeemed in heaven. Their songs and services 
will be dedicated " unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our 
sins in his own blood." * 



§ 2. How Justification may be obtained. 

Among those who profess to be guided by the Scriptures several 
different theories have obtained in regard to the manner in which 
men are put in possession of the blessing of justification. The first 
theory which we will notice is, that we are justified by the impu- 
tation of Christ's active obedience ; the second, that we are justified by 
the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience, taken together ; 
and the third, that we are justified by the imputation of faith for right- 
eousness. The last is the scheme which we believe to be taught in the 

* "Wesley's Sermons. 



410 JUSTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

Scriptures; but we will examine each of them in the order in which 
they are stated. 

I. Justification by the imputation of Christ's active obedi- 
ence. 

This may be called the high Calvinistic or Antinomian scheme. It is 
that the active obedience of Christ is so imputed to the elect as to 
become theirs in legal construction, and render them as legally right- 
eous as if they had been perfectly obedient to the law of God. The 
plain answer to this is, 

1 . That it is wholly gratuitous. — That the active obedience of Christ 
is imputed to us for justification is nowhere stated in the Holy Scrip- 
tures. It is indeed said, in reference to the Messiah, (Jeremiah xxhi, 6,) 
that "he shall be called the Lord our righteousness /" and St. Paul 
says (1 Corinthians i, 30) that Christ "is made unto us wisdom, and 
righteousness ', and sanctification, and redemption." But there is no 
evidence that Christ's personal righteousness is here referred to at all. 
It is rather " his obedience unto death, even the death of the cross" 
Nor is it asserted in these Scriptures that Christ's righteousness shall 
be ours, or that it shall be imputed to us. Their plain and most 
obvious meaning is that Christ is the source or fountain whence our 
righteousness or justification is derived. 

2. That the doctrine involves a fiction and impossibility incompati- 
ble with the Divine perfections. — " The judgment of the all- wise God is 
always according to truth ; neither can it ever consist with his unerring 
wisdom to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous or 
holy because another is so. He can no more confound me with Christ 
than with David or Abraham."* Again, if the obedience of Christ is 
to be accounted ours in the sense of this theory, then it must be sup- 
posed that we never sinned because Christ never sinned ; and yet we 
must ask for pardon, though we are accounted to have perfectly ful- 
filled in Christ the whole law of God. If it should be said that when 
we ask for pardon we only ask for a revelation to us of our eternal 
justification, the matter is not altered ; for what -need is there of par- 
don in time or eternity if we are accounted to have perfectly obeyed 
God's holy law ? And why should we be accounted also to have suf- 
fered in Christ the penalty of sins which we are accounted never to 
have committed % 

3. That the personal acts of Christ were of too lofty- a character to 
be imputed to mere creatures. — He was God and man united in one per- 
son, — a circumstance which gave a peculiar character of fullness and 
perfection to his obedience, beyond the reach of man even in his state 
of innocence. He that assumes to himself the righteousness of Christ, 
presents himself to God, not in the habit of a righteous man, but in the 
glorious attire of the great Mediator of the world. Now, for a worm 

* Wesley's Sermons. 



Chap. 8, § 2.] HOW OBTAINED. 411 

of the dust to take this robe of immeasurable majesty upon him, and to 
suppose himself to be as holy and righteous as Jesus Christ, is what no 
sober man can imagine to be right. 

4. That there are duties which Christ never personally performed, and 
in regard to which, therefore, his obedience cannot be imputed to us. — 
Suppose that we are guilty of violating the paternal or the conjugal 
duties, the duties of magistrates or of servants, with many others ; the 
theory is that we are justified by the imputation of Christ's personal 
acts of righteousness to us, and that they are reckoned to us as though 
we ourselves had performed them. But our Lord having never stood 
in any of these relations, never acquired a personal righteousness of this 
kind ; and as that which was never done by him cannot be imputed to 
us, so it would follow that for such delinquencies there could be no 
forgiveness. . 

5. That this doctrine stands opposed to the moral government of God 
and shuts out the obligation of personal obedience to his law. — So far 
is it from being a demonstration of God's righteousness that it transfers 
the obligation of obedience from the subjects of the Divine government 
to Christ, and thus it leaves man without law, and God without 
dominion. 

6. But a crowning and most fatal objection to this theory is that it 
shifts the meritorious cause of man 's justification from Chris fs " obe- 
dience unto death," where the Scriptures place it, to Christ's active obe- 
dience to the precepts of the law, and leaves no rational account of the 
reason of Christ's vicarious sufferings. To the "blood" of Christ the 
New Testament writers ascribe our redemption ; and " faith in his 
blood" is as clearly held out as the instrumental cause of our justi- 
fication. But by this doctrine the attention and hope of men are 
perversely turned away from his sacrificial death to his holy life, 
which, though necessary, both as an example to us and also to 
qualify his sacrifice that his blood should be that of " a lamb without 
spot," is nowhere represented as that on account of which men are 
pardoned. 

If the active obedience of Christ is imputed for justification to all for 
whom he died, then it will follow, 1. That he died for the just and not* 
for the unjust, as the Scriptures declare. 2. That his death was unneces- 
sary ; for those for whom he died are made perfectly righteous without 
it. " If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." 
Gal. ii, 21. And, 3. That men are still under the covenant of works, 
and are justified by an obedience to the law ; though St. Paul declares 
that "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in" the 
sight of God. Rom. iii, 20. 

II. Justification by the imputation of Christ's active and pas- 
sive OBEDIENCE TAKEN TOGETHER. 

This is the theory which was held by Mr. Calvin, whose sentiments 



412 JUSTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

may be collected with sufficient accuracy from the following passages in 
the third book of his Institutes : 

" We simply explain justification to be an acceptance by which God 
receives us into his favor, and esteems us as righteous persons ; and we 
say it consists in the remission of sins, and the imputation of the right- 
eousness of Christ." * " But this is a wonderful method of justification, 
that sinners, being invested with the righteousness of Christ, dread not 
the judgment which they have deserved." f " Man is righteous, not in 
himself, but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him 
by imputation." And again, " What is placing our righteousness in the 
obedience of Christ, but asserting that we are accounted righteous only 
because his obedience is accepted for us as if it were our own." J 

The language which Mr. Calvin employs in these passages seems, at 
first sight, to favor the Antinomian opinion which we have just refuted ; 
but between that theory and the views which he entertained there is 
this marked difference, that in the latter there is no separation made 
between the active and the passive righteousness of Christ ; in other 
words, between his obedience to the precepts of the moral law and his 
obedience to its penalty. But the obedience of Christ is considered as 
one ; his holy life and sacrificial death being regarded as constituting 
that perfect righteousness which is imputed to us for justification before 
God. ' 

The view taken by Mr. Calvin of the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
ness in justification is, obviously, that his entire obedience to the will of 
the Father, both in doing and suffering, is, as he says, " accepted for us 
as if it were our own ;" so that, in virtue of this obedience, upon our 
believing we are accounted righteous, not personally, but by the remis- 
sion or non -imputation of our sins. Thus he observes on Acts xiii, 
38, 39 : "The justification which we have by Christ in the Gospel is not 
a justification with righteousness, properly so called, but a justification 
from sin and from the guilt of sin and condemnation due to it. So when 
Christ said to men and women in the Gospel, ' Thy sins are forgiven 
thee,' then he justified them — the forgiveness of their sins was their jus- 
tification." Again, " Those whom God receives are made righteous no 
otherwise than as they are purified by being cleansed from all their 
defilements by the remission of sins." § 

So little can be objected to Calvin's doctrine of imputed righteousness 
that many divines, opposed to the Calvinian theory in general, have not 
hesitated to assent to it in substance ; reserving to themselves some lib- 
erty in the use of the terms in which it is often enveloped, either to 
modify, explain, or reject them. 

Thus Arminius : " I believe that sinners are accounted righteous 
solely by the obedience of Christ ; and that the righteousness of Christ 
is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins 
* Institutes, book 3, chap. 11. f Ibid. \ Ibid. § Ibid. 



Chap. 8, § 2.] HOW OBTAINED. 413 

of believers and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly ful- 
filled the law. But since God imputes the righteousness of Christ to 
none except believers, I conclude that, in this sense, it may be well and 
properly said, To a man who believes faith is imputed for righteous- 
ness through grace; because God hath set forth his Son, Jesus Christ, 
to be a propitiation, a throne of grace, (or mercy-seat,) through faith in 
his blood."* 

So also Mr. Wesley : " As the active and passive righteousness of 
Christ were never in fact separated from each other, so we never need 
separate them at all, either in speaking or even in thinking. And it is with 
regard to both these conjointly that Jesus is called 'The Lord our Right- 
eousness.' But in what sense is this righteousness imputed to believ- 
ers ? In this : All believers are forgiven and accepted, not for the sake 
of anything in them, or of anything that ever was, that is, or ever can 
be done by them, but wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ 
hath done and suffered for them." f 

Though these eminent divines seem to agree substantially with Calvin 
as to the meritorious cause of our justification, yet it is clear that in their 
interpretation of the phrase, " the imputed righteousness of Christ," 
they do not entirely follow him. With Calvin the notion of imputation 
seems to be that the righteousness of Christ, that is, his entire obedience 
to the will of the Father, both in doing and suffering, is, upon our 
believing, imputed or accounted to us, or accepted for us, " as if it were 
our own." From which we may conclude that he admitted some kind 
of transfer of the righteousness of Christ to our account ; and that believ- 
ers are considered so to be in Christ as that he should answer for them 
in law, and plead his righteousness in default of theirs. 

The opinion of some professedly Calvinistic divines, as of Baxter and 
his followers, and of the majority of evangelical Arminians is, that 
the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers in the sense of its 
being accounted of God the valuable consideration, satisfaction, and 
merit, for the sake of which alone he justifies them freely, and admits 
them to all the privileges of the covenant of grace. 

Between these two theories there is a manifest difference, which arises 
from the different senses in which the term imputation is taken. In 
the latter it is taken in the sense of accounting or allowing to believers 
the benefits of redemption, through the righteousness of Christ, as the 
only meritorious cause ; but in the former, in the sense of reckoning or 
accounting the righteousness of Christ as ours ; that is, what he did 
and suffered is regarded as done and suffered by us. " His obedience 
is accepted," says Calvin, " as if it were our own." So then, though 
Calvin does not divide the active and passive obedience of Christ ; 
though he does not make justification anything more than the remis- 
sion of sins, yet his opinion easily slides into the Antinomian notion, 
* Works of Arminius, vol. i, p; 264. \ Wesley's Works, vol. i, pp. Ill, 172. 



414 JUSTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

and is open to several of the same objections. It is without any foun- 
dation in the word of God;* and it also involves the impossibility 
that what Christ did and suffered can be considered, in any sense, by 
him who knows all things as they are, as being done and suffered 
by us. 

But the strongest objection to this theory of imputation is, that it is 
absurd in itself. For, if the righteousness of Christ is made ours by 
imputation, and if this righteousness includes both his active and passive 
obedience to the law of God, then these consequences will follow : 
1. That in our justification there is no room for pardon, for it is absurd 
to suppose that pardon and perfect obedience can meet in the same per- 
son. 2. That we are furnished with both an active and a passive justi- 
fication, which is more than the case demands ; unless we are required 
perfectly to obey the law, and to suffer its penalty also, which would be 
both unjust and absurd. 

It is admitted by the best Arminian writers, that the active and the 
passive righteousness of Christ are not separated in the Scriptures, and 
that we ought not to separate them. But though they are united, 
and though both are essential to the accomplishment of human redemp- 
tion, yet they are not essential precisely in the same sense. The passive 
obedience of Christ was directly essential, as a satisfaction to the claims 
of justice ; but the active obedience of Christ was essential indirectly, 
as giving perfection and dignity to the sufferer. Hence, properly 
speaking, the moral obedience of Christ was essential in making satis- 
faction to justice, only so far as it was necessary that he should possess 
absolute perfection, in order to render his sufferings available. His 
active obedience sustained the same relation to his redeeming work as 
his supreme divinity. Both gave dignity and value to that "obedi- 
ence unto death " which made an atonement for sin, but they consti- 
tuted no part of the penalty which justice inflicted. To obey the law, 
and possess divinity, were essential to his character as Mediator ; and 
we have no more right to suppose that his active obedience is imputed 
to us as our own, than that his Divine nature is. 

In no other sense, then, can the righteousness of Christ be imputed 
to us than in its benefits and effects; that is, in the blessings and 
privileges purchased by it. And though we may use the phrase in this 
qualified sense, yet, since this manner of speaking has no foundation in 
Scripture, and must generally lead to misapprehension, it will be found 
more conducive to the cause of truth to confine ourselves to the lan- 
guage of the inspired writers. According to them, there is no fictitious 
accounting either of what Christ did or suffered, or of both united, to 
us as being done and suffered by us, through our union with him, or 

* In support of this theory of imputation the following texts are usually quoted : 
Isa. xlv, 24; Jer. xxiii, 6; Rom. iii, 21, 22; iv, 6; v, 18, 19; 2 Cor. v, 21. A slight 
examination, however, will clearly show that these passages prove no such doctrine. 



Chap. 8, § 2.] HOW OBTAINED. 415 

through his becoming our legal representative. But his righteousness, 
both active and passive, heightened in dignity by its union with the 
Divine nature, is the true meritorious cause of our justification. It is 
that great consideration, in view of which the offended but merciful 
Governor of the world has determined it to be just and righteous, as 
well as merciful, to justify the ungodly. And, for the sake of this per- 
fect obedience of our Lord to the will of the Father, to every penitent 
sinner who believes in him, but considered still in his own person as 
" ungodly," his faith is imputed for " righteousness." It is followed 
by the remission of his sins, and all the benefits of the evangelical cove- 
nant. This leads us to consider, 

III. The doctrine op Justification by the imputation of Faith 
for Righteousness. 

This is the only view of the subject which perfectly harmonizes with 
the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, and with that great tenet of the 
Reformation, that we are justified by faith alone. The doctrine is thus 
set forth in our ninth article of religion : " We are accounted righteous 
before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by 
faith, and not for our own works or deservings : Wherefore, that we 
are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full 
of comfort." 

We will now proceed to give a scriptural view of this doctrine ; and 
to show that faith is the condition, and the only condition of our justi- 
fication before God. 

1. A scriptural mew of the doctrine, that faith is imputed to us for 
righteousness. — On this, as well as on every other doctrine of Chris- 
tianity, the teachings of the Bible must be our guide ; and we now 
appeal to this infallible standard of truth, with the strongest confidence 
of finding a satisfactory account of the doctrine before us. 

That this is the doctrine taught by the express letter of the Scrip- 
tures no one can deny ; and, as has been well observed, " what that is 
which is imputed for righteousness in justification, all the wisdom and 
learning of men are not so fit or able to determine as the Holy Ghost." 
The apostle tells us that " Abraham believed God, and it was counted 
(eXoyLoBn, imputed) unto him for righteousness." Rom. iv, 3. So 
verse 5 : "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth 
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." So also in verse 9 : 
"We say that faith was reckoned {imputed) to Abraham for righteous- 
ness." " Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was 
imputed to him ; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if 
we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." 
(Verses 23, 24.) 

The testimony of the apostle, then, being so express on this point, 
the imputation of faith for righteousness must be taken to be the doctrine 
of the New Testament, unless we admit, with the advocates of the 



416 justification. [Book IV. 

imputation of Christ's righteousness, that faith is here used metonymi- 
cally for the object of faith, that is, the righteousness of Christ. The 
context of the above passages, however, sufficiently refutes this, and 
makes it indubitable that the apostle uses the term faith in its proper 
and literal sense. In verse 5 he calls the faith of him that believeth, 
and which is imputed to him for righteousness, " his faith ;" but in 
what sense could this be taken if St. Paul meant by " his faith " the 
object of his faith, namely, the righteousness of Christ ? And how 
could that be his before the imputation is made to him ? 

Again, the faith spoken of is opposed to works. "To him that 
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith 
is counted for righteousness." In verse 21 the apostle represents that 
faith which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness as consisting in 
a firm reliance on the ability of God to perform his gracious promises. 
" And being fully persuaded, that what he had promised, he was able 
also to perform. And therefore, it was imputed to him for righteous- 
ness." Finally, in verse 24, the faith which shall be imputed to us for 
righteousness is described to be our believing " on him that raised up 
Jesus our Lord from the dead." By these explanations the apostle has 
rendered it most indubitable, that by the term faith he means the act 
of believing. 

Some further observations may be necessary, however, for the clear 
apprehension of this doctrine in its true scriptural light. 

The apostle, in treating the subject of justification, lays it down as a 
great and fundamental axiom, that by the works of the law no man can 
be justified. His doctrine is, that all men are sinners ; that they must 
confess themselves such and join to this confession a true repentance; 
that justification is a gratuitous act of God's mercy, a procedure of 
pure grace, not of debt ; that in order to the exercise of this grace on 
the part of God, Christ was set forth as a propitiation for sin ; that his 
death under this character is a " demonstration of the righteousness of 
God " in the free and gratuitous remission of sins, and that this actual 
remission or justification follows upon our believing in Christ, because 
faith under this gracious constitution and method of justification is 
accounted to men for righteousness ; in other words, that righteousness 
is imputed to them upon their believing, which imputation of righteous- 
ness consists in the forgiveness of sins. 

The apostle shows also, from the justification of Abraham, that this 
is no new doctrine : " Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto 
him for righteousness." Rom. iv, 3. " Know ye, therefore, that they 
which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the 
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, 
preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all 
nations be blessed. So, then, they which be of faith are blessed with 
faithful Abraham." Gal. iii, 1-9. 



Chap. 8, § 2.] . HOW OBTAINED. 417 

When, however, we say that faith is imputed for righteousness, in 
order to prevent misapprehension and fully to answer the objections 
raised on the other side, the meaning of the different terms of this prop- 
osition ought to be explained. They are righteousness, faith, and 

IMPUTATION. 

(1.) With regard to the first, it may be observed that the apostle often 
uses the term dcfcaioavvn, righteousness , in a passive sense for justifica- 
tion itself. Thus : " If righteousness (justification) come by the law, 
then Christ is dead in vain." Gal. ii, 21. "For if there had been a law 
given which could have given life, verily, righteousness (justification) 
should have been by the law." Gal. iii, 21. "The Gentiles have 
attained to righteousness, (justification,) even the righteousness (jus- 
tification) which is of faith." Rom. ix, 30. " Christ is the end of the 
law for righteousness (justification) to every one that believeth." Rom. 
x, 4. It may be seen from Romans v, 18, 19, that with the apostle, to 
"be made righteous" and to be justified signify the same thing; for 
"justification of life," in the eighteenth verse, is called in the nineteenth 
being " made righteous." To be accounted righteous is, then, in the 
apostle's style, where there has been personal guilt, to be justified ; and 
what is accounted or imputed to us for righteousness, is accounted or 
imputed to us for justification. 

(2.) The next term which it is necessary to explain is faith. The 
true nature of justifying faith will be explained in another place. All 
that is necessary here is to remark, that it is not every act of faith, nor 
faith in the general truths of revelation, which is imputed for righteous- 
ness, though it supposes the latter, and is the completion of it. 
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the 
word of God," but it is not our faith in creation which is imputed to us 
for righteousness. So in the case of Abraham, he not only had faith in 
the truths of the religion of which he was the teacher and guardian, 
but had exercised affiance, also, in some particular promises of God 
before he exhibited that great act of faith which was " counted to him 
for righteousness," and which made his justification the pattern of the 
justification of sinful men in all ages. But having received the promise 
of a son, from whom the Messiah should spring, in whom all nations 
were to be blessed, " he staggered not at the promise of God," even in 
view of seeming impossibilities, " but was strong in faith, giving glory 
to God ; and being fully persuaded, that what he had promised, he was 
able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for right- 
eousness." Rom. iv, 20-22. His faith had Messiah for its ultimate 
object, and in its nature it was an entire affiance in the promise and 
faithfulness of God, with reference to the holy seed. 

So, likewise, the object of that faith which is imputed to us for right- 
eousness is Christ — Christ as having made atonement for our sins ; for it 
is " through faith in his blood" that we obtain remission. This faith is, 

27 



418 justification. [Book IV. 

therefore, an entire affiance in God's promise of pardon, made to us 
through the atonement of Christ, and founded upon it. This view of 
faith excludes all notion of its meritoriousness. It is not faith, generally 
considered, which is imputed to us for righteousness, but trust in an 
atonement offered by another in our behalf; by which trust in some- 
thing without us we acknowledge our own insufficiency, guilt, and 
unworthiness,.and directly ascribe the merit to that in which we trust, 
and which is not our own, namely, the propitiation of the blood of 
Christ. 

(3.) The last term to be explained is imputation. The original verb 
(Xoyifruai) is well enough translated to impute in the sense of to reckon, 
to account; but it is never used to signify imputation in the sense of 
accounting the actions of one person to have been performed by 
another. 

A man's sin or righteousness is imputed to him when he is considered 
as actually the doer of sinful or of righteous acts, in which sense the 
word repute is more commonly used ; and he is consequently reputed a 
vicious or a holy man. A man's sin or righteousness is imputed to him 
in its legal conseqtiences, under a government of rewards and punish- 
ments ; and then to impute sin or righteousness signifies, in a legal 
sense, to reckon or account it, to acquit or to condemn, and forthwith 
to punish or exempt from punishment. Thus Shimei entreated David 
not to "impute iniquity unto" him, that is, not to punish him for his 
iniquity. 

In this sense, too, David speaks of the blessedness of the man " unto 
whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," that is, whom he forgives, so 
that the legal consequences of his sin shall not fall upon him. This non- 
imputation of sin to a sinner is expressly called the " imputation of right- 
eousness without works." The imputation of righteousness is, then, the 
non-punishment or pardon of sin ; and if this passage be read in its con- 
nection, it will also be seen that by the imputing of faith for right- 
eousness, the apostle means precisely the same thing. " To him 
that worketh not, but believeth on him that justified the ungodly, Ms 
faith is counted for righteousness ; even as David, also, described 
the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, say- 
ing, Blessed are they whose iniquities- are forgiven, and whose sins are 
covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinP 

This quotation from David would have been nothing to the apostle's 
purpose unless he had understood the forgiveness of sins, the imputa- 
tion of righteousness, and the non-imputation of sin, to signify the same 
thing as the accounting of faith for righteousness, with only this dif- 
ference, that the introduction of the term faith marks the manner in 
which the forgiveness of sin is obtained. To impute faith for righteous- 
ness is nothing more than to be justified by faith; which is also called 
by St. Paul, " being made righteous," that is, being placed by an act of 



Chap. 8, § 2.] HOW OBTAINED. 419 

free forgiveness, through faith in Christ, in the condition of righteous 
men in this respect, that the penalty of the law does not lie against 
them, and that they are restored to the Divine favor. 

From this brief but, it is hoped, clear explanation of these terms, 
righteousness, faith, and imputation, it will appear that it is not quite 
correct in the advocates of the Scripture doctrine of the imputation of 
faith for righteousness to say that our faith in Christ is accepted in the 
place of personal obedience to the law ; except, indeed, in this loose 
sense, that our faith in Christ as effectually exempts us from punish- 
ment as if we had been personally obedient. The scriptural doctrine 
is rather that the death of Christ is accepted in the place of our per- 
sonal punishment on condition of our faith in him; and that when this 
faith is actually exercised, then comes in, on the part of God, the act of 
imputing or reckoning righteousness to us ; or, what is the same thing, 
accounting faith for righteousness ; that is, pardoning our offenses 
through faith, and treating us as the objects of his restored favor. 
Hence we arrive at the conclusion, 

2. That faith is the condition, and the only condition, of our justifi- 
cation before God. — This view of the subject is very clearly established 
by numerous passages of Scripture. We remark, then, 

(1.) It is the evangelical condition of justification. " He that believeth 
on him is not condemned ;" that, is, he is justified, for justification is the 
opposite of condemnation. " He that believeth on the Son hath ever- 
lasting life." John iii, 36. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
shalt be saved." Acts xvi, 31. It is a necessary condition. "He that 
believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi, 16. "He that believeth not 
is condemned already ;" and he is condemned " because he hath not 
believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." John iii, 18. 
" He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life ; but the wrath of 
God abideth on him." John iii, 18, 36. As there is no "other name 
under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved," but the 
name of Jesus Christ, so there is no way by which we can obtain tjie 
salvation which Christ has purchased for us but by believing in his 
name. While we are destitute of this faith we are " without Christ, 
being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from 
the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the 
world." 

(2.) Faith is the only necessary condition. It is the " only thing 
without which no one is justified ; the only thing that is immediately, 
indispensably, absolutely requisite in order to pardon. As on the one 
hand, though a man should have everything else, yet without faith he 
cannot be justified ; so, on the other, though he be supposed to want 
everything else, yet if he has faith he cannot but be justified. For sup- 
pose a sinner of any kind or degree, in a full sense of his total ungodli- 
ness, of his utter inability to think, speak, or do good, and his absolute 



420 JUSTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

meetness for hell fire : suppose I say, this sinner, helpless and hopeless, 
casts himself wholly on the mercy of God in Christ, (which indeed he 
cannot do but by the grace of God,) who can doubt but he is forgiven 
in that moment ? Who will affirm that any more is indispensably 
required before the sinner can be justified ?"* 

Faith, then, is the condition to which the promise of God annexes 
justification ; that without which justification would not take place, and 
in this sense it is that we are justified by faith ; not by the merit of 
faith, but by faith instrumentality as this condition, for its connection 
with the benefit arises from the merits of Christ and the promise of 
God. " If Christ had not merited, God had not promised ; if God had 
not promised, justification had never followed upon this faith ; so that 
the indissoluble connection of faith and justification is from God's insti- 
tution, whereby he has bound himself to give the benefit upon perform- 
ance of the condition."! 

This reliance upon the promise of God, made to us through the 
mediation of Jesus Christ, is at once an acknowledgment of our guilt, 
and that we have no righteousness of our own. It honors God the 
Father and Christ the Redeemer. It acknowledges on earth what will 
forever be acknowledged in heaven, that the whole of our salvation, 
from its beginning to its last degree, is a work of God's free grace, 
effected through the merits and intercession of Christ, and by the power 
of the Holy Spirit. 

From this plain and scriptural account of the doctrine of justification 
by faith we may infer, 1. That the faith by which we are justified is 
not a mere assent to the doctrines of the Gospel, which leaves the heart 
unmoved and unaffected by a sense of the evil and danger of sin, though 
it supposes this assent ' r nor, 2. Is it that more lively and cordial belief 
of the Gospel, touching our sinful and lost condition, which is wrought 
in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and from which springs repentance, 
though this must precede it ; nor, 3. Is it only the assent of the mind 
to the method by which God justifies the ungodly by faith in the sacri- 
fice of his Son, though this is an element in it; but, 4. That it is a 
hearty concurrence of the will and affections with this plan of salva- 
tion, which implies a renunciation of every other refuge, an actual trust 
in the Saviour, and a personal apprehension of his merits. It is " such 
a belief of the Gospel as leads us to come to Christ, to trust in Christ, 
and to commit the keeping of our souls into his hands, in humble con- 
fidence of his ability and his willingness to save us."J 

§ 3. Objections Answered. 

To the doctrine of justification by faith alone some objections have 
been made, the most important of which we will now consider. It is 
objected, 

* Wesley's Works, vol. i, p. 51. f Lawson. \ Dr. Bunting. 



Chap. 8, § 3.] OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 421 

1. That if faith is imputed to us for righteousness, then justifica- 
tion is by works, or by somewhat in ourselves. — In this objection the 
term works is equivocal. If it means works of obedience to the moral 
law the objection is unfounded, for faith is not a work of this kind. If 
it means the merit of works of any kind it is equally without founda- 
tion, for no merit is allowed to faith. Indeed, faith, in the sense of 
exclusive affiance, or trusting in the merits of Christ, shuts out, by its 
very nature, all assumption of merit to ourselves ; otherwise, there 
would be no need of resorting to the merits of another. But if the 
term means that faith or believing is doing something in order to our 
justification, it is, in this view, the performance of a condition, a sine 
qua non, which is not only not forbidden in Scripture, but required of 
us. " This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath 
sent." " He that believeth shall be saved ; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned." And so far is this from being incompatible with the 
free grace of God in our justification, that St. Paul makes our justifi- 
cation by faith the proof of its gratuitous nature ; " for by grace are 
ye saved through faith" " Therefore, it is by faith that it might be 
by grace? 

2. Another objection is, that the imputation of faith for righteous- 
?iess gives occasion to boasting, which is condemned by the Gospel. — 
The answer to this is, 1. That the objection lies with equal strength 
against the theory of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, since 
faith is required in order to that imputation. 2. Boasting of our faith 
is cut off by the consideration that the power to believe is the gift of 
God. 3. If it were not, yet the blessings which follow upon our faith 
are not given with reference to any compensative worth or merit which 
there may be in our believing, but are given with respect to the death 
of Christ, from the bounty and grace of God. 4. St. Paul was clearly 
of the contrary opinion, who tells us that " boasting is excluded by the 
law of faith /" the reason of which has been afready stated, that trust 
in another for salvation does, ipso facto, attribute the power, and con- 
sequently the honor of our salvation to another, and denies both to our- 
selves. 

3. It is still further objected, that the doctrine of justification by 
faith alone is unfavorable to morality. — To this the answer is, that 
though we are justified by faith alone, the faith by which we are justi- 
fied is not alone in the heart which exercises it. In receiving Christ, 
as the writers of the Reformation often say, "faith is sola, yet not 
solitaria." It is not the trust of a man asleep and secure, but the trust 
of one awakened, and aware of the peril of eternal death as the wages of 
sin. It is not the trust of a man ignorant of the spiritual meaning of 
God's holy law, but of one who is convinced and slain by it. It is, in 
a word, the trust of one who feels through the convincing power of the 
word and Spirit of God that he is justly exposed to wrath, and in 



422 « JUSTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

whom this conviction produces a genuine sorrow for sin, and an intense 
and supreme desire to be delivered from its penalty and dominion. As 
this is proved by the seventh chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 
so the former part of the eighth shows the moral state which is the 
immediate result of " being in Christ Jesus," through the exercise of 
that faith which alone, as we have seen, can give us a personal interest 
in him. " There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ 
Jesus." This exemption from condemnation is the first result of justifi- 
cation by faith. The next is manifestly concomitant with it, " who 
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" This is the effect of the 
faith that justifies ; from which alone, as it brings us to Christ our 
deliverer, our entire deliverance from sin can follow. " What shall we 
say then ? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ? God for- 
bid: how shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" 
Rom. vi, 1, 2. Thus the apostle himself meets this very objection, by 
showing that the doctrine of justification by faith is the doctrine of holi- 
ness, and points out the only remedy for sin's dominion. 

4. It is objected, that the doctrine of jicstification by faith alone is 
inconsistent with what the Scriptures teach in reference to justification 
by evangelical obedience. — It is proper to observe here, that the word 
justify is^used in Scripture in reference to that sentence of acquittal 
which shall be pronounced upon men at the day of judgment. Thus : 
u By thy words thou shcdt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be 
condemned." Matt, xii, 37. As the term "words" in the text, denotes 
the entire moral conduct, this justification is in a certain sense by works. 
It is not, however, by the merit of works, but by their testimony, as the 
proof of our true moral character. Hence it is declared, that every man 
shall be rewarded "according to his woeks." Nor are the works 
according to which men shall be justified in the last day to be con- 
sidered in the abstract, but only as resulting from an evangelical faith. 

The theory assumed in the objection is substantially that of justifica- 
tion by works, with these qualifications, that the works are evangelical, 
or such as proceed from faith ; that they are done by Divine assistance ; 
and that such works, though not meritorious, are a necessary condition 
of justification. The advocates of this scheme rely mainly upon the 
testimony of St. James, supposing him to teach the doctrine that a 
man is justified before God by evangelical obedience. Instead of recon- 
ciling St. James to St. Paul, the course which commentators usually 
pursue, they attempt to reconcile the latter to the former. They sup- 
pose, therefore, that when St. Paul denies the possibility of justification 
by works he refers simply to works of obedience to the Mosaic law, 
and that by the faith which justifies, he means the works which spring 
from faith. A few remarks, however, will be sufficient to show that 
these theorists have misinterpreted both St. Paul and St. James, and 
that there is really no discrepancy between them. 



Chap. 8, § 3.] OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 423 

(1.) They seem to disagree only in what they testify respecting the 
justification of Abraham. But they do not refer to the same event. 
St. Paul speaks of Abraham's justification when, before the birth of 
Isaac, his faith in the promise of God was counted " to him for right- 
eousness ;" St. James, of his justification when he " offered Isaac his 
son upon the altar." Hence, as they speak of entirely different transac- 
tions, separated in time by about twenty-five years, they cannot contra- 
dict one another. 

(2.) The two apostles do not use the term faith in the same sense. 
St. Paul speaks of that faith which " works by love and purifies the 
heart." St. James speaks of faith as a mere assent of the understand- 
ing ; of that faith which is " dead," and " alone," and such as " devils" 
possess. St. Paul nowhere affirms that we are justified by such a faith 
as this. The faith of which he speaks is never " alone," though it 
alone justifies. Hence, when St. James asks the question, " Can faith 
save him ?" he means a very different faith from that of which St. Paul 
speaks when he concludes " that a- man is justified by faith without 
the deeds of the law." Rom. iii, 28. 

(3.) Nor do these apostles use the term justification in the same 
sense. That St. Paul uses it in the sense of pardon, or the remission 
of sins, has been clearly proved. But that St. James does not use it in 
this sense is most evident from his reference to the case of Abraham. 
" Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, when he had offered 
Isaac his son upon the altar ?" Does St. James mean 'that Abraham 
was then justified in the sense of being forgiven ? Certainly not ; for 
in this sense he had been justified, according to the testimony of Moses, 
not less than twenty-five years before.* To suppose, then, that 
St. James speaks of this kind of justification, is to suppose him to teach 
the doctrine that Abraham was not pardoned and received into the 
favor of God until he had offered his son upon the altar ; but as this 
would contradict both Moses and St. Paul, it cannot be admitted. 
Hence we conclude, that St. James, in what he assumes respecting the 
justification of Abraham by works, means no more than that his obedi- 
ence was a manifestation or proof of his former justification by faith. 
By the astonishing act of his obedience in offering his son upon the 
altar " the Scripture was fulfilled," that is,- it was illustrated and con- 
firmed, " which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto 
him for righteousness." James ii, 23. 

* Gen. xv, 4-6. 



424 REGENERATION. [Book IV. 



CHAPTER IX. 

REGENERATION. 

Concomitant with justification, which we have just considered, are 
the two great blessings of the remedial system, — Regeneration and 
Adoption. With respect to these we may observe, that though we 
must distinguish them as being different from each other, and from 
justification, yet they are not to be separated. They all occur at the 
same time, and they all enter into the experience of the same person ; 
so that no man is justified without being regenerated and adopted, and 
no man is regenerated and made a child of God who is not justified. 
Whenever, therefore, they are mentioned in Scripture, they involve and 
imply one another, — a remark which may preserve us from some error. 

Thus, with respect to our heirship or title to eternal life, it may be 
inferred from owe justification. "That, being justified by his grace, we 
should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus iii,. 1. 
It is also connected with our regeneration. " Blessed be the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant 
mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible," etc. 
1 Peter i, 3. It is, however, mainly grounded upon our adoption. 
"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ." 
Rom. viii, IV. 

These passages are a sufficient proof, that justification, regeneration, 
and adoption are all taken together as the ground of our title, through 
the gift of God in Christ Jesus, to the heavenly inheritance. They are 
attained, too, by the same faith. We are "justified by faith ;" and we 
are " the children of God by faith in Christ. Jesus." Accordingly, in 
the following passage they are all united as the effect of the same faith. 
" But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the 
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name ; which were born, 
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 
God." John i, 12, 13. 

Having made these general remarks, we will now proceed to inquire 
into the Nature, the Necessity, and the Means of Regeneration. 

I. The nature of Regeneration. 

The Greek word ixaXtyyeveoia, which is rendered regeneration, is 
compounded of n&Xiv, again, and yiveacg, birth, nativity, origin. It 
literally signifies reproduction ; the act of forming a thing into a new 
and better state. The term is used by Greek writers to express that 
renovation of the face of nature which is produced by the return of 



Chap. 9.] REGENERATION. 425 

+ 
spring, when the earth sends forth her vegetables, flowers, and fruits. 
So, by a strong metaphor, Cicero, writing to Attic as, expresses the 
state and dignity to which he was reappointed after his return from 
exile, by the term regeneration. Josephus also calls the rebuilding and 
restoration of Jerusalem, after the Babylonian captivity, the regenera- 
tion of his country. 

There are only two passages of Scripture in the Xew Testament in 
which the term regeneration is employed. These are Matthew xix, 28, 
and Titus hi, 5. Some commentators refer the term, as employed by 
Matthew, to the millennial state; some, to the general resurrection ; 
but others, to the Gospel dispensation in its perfected state. It must, 
however, be admitted by all. that "regeneration,"' in this passage, has 
no direct reference to that moral renovation by which men are consti- 
tuted the children of God. 

The passage in Titus reads thus: "Xot by works of righteousness 
which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the 
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Here, it 
is generally understood, that the phrase " washing of regeneration" 
refers to the rite of baptism; and that this rite is so denominated, 
because it is the symbol or emblem of that Divine influence by which 
the soul is truly regenerated. Hence the apostle adds, " and renewing 
of the Holy Ghost;" which is intimately connected with what- goes 
before, and is exegetical of it. TTe must conclude, therefore, that the 
term M regeneration," in this passage, is applied to that moral change 
by which a man is constituted a child of God and an heir of eternal 
life. 

Regeneration may be defined to be that moral change in man, 
wrought by the Holy Spirit, by which he is saved from the love, the 
practice, and the dominion of sin, and enabled, with full choice of will 
and the energy of right affections, to love God and to keep his command- 
ments. 

In considering more fully the nature of this great moral change, we 
may remark, 

1. That eepentance is not regeneration. — It is only that prepara- 
tory process which leads to regeneration as it leads to pardon; but it is 
a process without which regeneration does not take place. Conviction, 
then, of the evil and danger of an imregenerate state must first be felt. 
It is true that repentance itself implies a work of God in the heart, and 
an important moral change ; but it is not this change, because regener- 
ation is that renewal of our nature which gives us dominion over sin, 
and enables us to serve God from love, and not merely from fear. This, 
with all true penitents, is still the object of search and eager desire, and 
is, therefore, confessedly unattained. They are not yet "created in 
Christ Jesus unto good works," which is as special and instant a work 
of God as justification. 



426 REGENERATION. [Book IV. 

2. That regeneration is a supernatural work. — It is everywhere in 
Scripture ascribed to Divine agency. The regenerate are born " not of 
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 
John i, 13. It is sometimes ascribed to the Father : "Of his own will 
begat he us with the word of truth." James i, 18. Of this great change 
Christ is the meritorious cause ; but it is especially attributed to the 
Holy Spirit as the efficient cause. In our Lord's conversation with Nic- 
odemus he declares that " except a man be born of water and of the 
/Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven ;" that " that which 
is born of the Spirit is spirit j" and that " so is every one that is born of 
the Spirit." John iii, 5, 6, 8. So also St. Paul teaches us, in 2 Thessa- 
lonians ii, 13, that we are chosen to salvation " through sanctification of 
the Spirit ;" and in Titus iii, 5, that we are regenerated " by the renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost." These are only a few of the many passages 
which ascribe our moral renovation to the Holy Spirit, but they are suf- 
ficient to establish the point. 

3. That regeneration is an inward and spiritual change. — To be con- 
vinced that this is an inward and thorough renovation of our moral 
being, it is only necessary that we should 'consider the many plain and 
impressive figures which the sacred writers employ illustrative of its 
nature. 

It is the bestowment of a new heart and a new spirit. " Then will I 
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filth- 
iness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also 
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take 
away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of 
flesh." Ezek. xxxvi, 25, 26. 

It is the circumcision of the heart. " The Lord thy God will circum- 
cise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Deut. 
xxx, 6. Again : " He is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; and circumcis- 
ion is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise 
is not of men, but of God." Rom. ii, 29. 

It is a new birth. " Except a man be horn again, he cannot see the 
kingdom of God." " Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be 
bom again." John iii, 3, 7. " Being born again, not of corruptible 
seed, but of incorruptible." 1 Peter i, 23. 

It is a new creation. " If any man be in Christ he is a new creature : 
(or, there is a new creation :) old things are passed away ; behold, all 
things are become new." 2 Cor, v, 17. So also, " We are his workman- 
ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Eph. ii, 10. 

It is the image of God on the soul. "And that ye put on the new 
man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." 
Eph. iv, 24. Again : "And have put on the new man, which is renewed 
in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Col. iii, 10. 



Chap. 9.] REGENERATION. 427 

It is Christ formed in the heart. " My little children, of whom I 
travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you.'''' Gal. iv, 19. "To 
whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this 
mystery among the Gentiles ; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." 
Col. i, 27. 

And, finally, it is freedom from the dominion of sin. "For sin shall 
not have dominion over you ; for ye are not under the law, but under 
grace." Rom. vi, 14. "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit 
sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is 
born of God." 1 John iii, 9. 

From these Scriptures it manifestly appears what is the true nature 
of regeneration. " It is that great change which God works in the soul 
when he brings it into life ; when he raises it from the death of sin to 
the life of righteousness. It is the change wrought in the whole soul 
by the Almighty Spirit of God when it is ' created anew in Christ Jesus ;' 
when it is c renewed after the image of God, in righteousness and true 
holiness ;' when the love of the world is changed into the love of God ; 
pride into humility ; passion into meekness ; hatred, envy, malice, into 
a sincere, tender, disinterested love for all mankind. In a word, it 
is that change whereby the earthly, sensual, devilish mind is turned 
into the * mind which was in Christ Jesus.' "* " So is every one that 
is born of the Spirit." 

4. That regeneration always accompanies justification. — This may be 
proved, 

(1.) From the nature of justification itself, which takes away the 
penalty of sin : that penalty in not only obligation to punishment, but 
also the loss of the sanctifying Spirit, and the curse of being left under 
the slavery of sin and the dominion of Satan. — Regeneration is effected 
by this Spirit restored to us, and is a consequence of our pardon ; for 
though justification in itself is the remission of sin, yet a justified state 
implies a change, both in our condition and disposition : in our condi- 
tion, as we are in a state of life, not of death ; of safety, not of con- 
demnation and danger : in our disposition, as regenerate and new crea- 
tures. 

(2.) From Scripture, which affords us direct proof that regeneration 
is concomitant with justification. " If any man be in Christ, he is a 
new creature." 2 Cor. v, 17. The meaning of the phrase "in Christ" 
is explained by Romans viii, 1, considered in connection with the pre- 
ceding chapter, to which it properly belongs. That chapter describes 
the state of one convinced and slain by the law. We may discover in 
this description certain moral changes, as consenting to the law that it 
is good ; delight in it after the inward man ; strong desires, and a 
humble confession. The state represented is, however, one of guilt, 
spiritual captivity, helplessness, and misery ; a state of condemnation, 
* "Wesley's Works, vol. i, p. 403. 



428 KEGENERATION. [Book IV. 

and of bondage to sin. The opposite condition is that of a man "in 
Christ Jesus." To him " there is no condemnation;" he is forgiven; 
the bondage to sin is broken ; he " walks not after the flesh, but after 
the Spirit." To be "in Christ" is, therefore, to be justified; and 
regeneration instantly follows. We see, then, the order of the Divine 
operation in individual experience : conviction of sin, helplessness, and 
danger ; faith in Christ, justification, and regeneration. 

II. The Necessity of Regeneration. 

The great proof of the necessity of regeneration lies in the depravity 
of our moral nature. This doctrine St. Paul teaches in the most explicit 
manner in the first three chapters of his Epistle to the Romans ; and, 
commenting on his own arguments, he says, " We have proved both 
Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." Considering this point 
as fully established, we will proceed to argue the necessity of regener- 
ation, 

1. From express declarations of Scripture. — "Except ye be con- 
verted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the king- 
dom of heaven." Matt, xviii, 3. " Except a man be born again, he can- 
not see the kingdom of God." " Ye must be born again." John iii, 3, 7. 
" Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of 
God." 1 Cor. vi, 9. But this necessity may be argued, 

2. From the holiness of God. — God is a perfectly holy Being, and 
must, therefore, regard sin with hatred and abhorrence. " Every sin- 
ner opposes his whole character, law, designs, and government ; loves 
what he hates, hates what he loves, and labors to dishonor his name and 
to frustrate his purposes. This character of the sinner God discerns 
with clear and unerring certainty. Both his guilt and its desert are 
naked to the Omniscient eye. It is impossible, therefore, that he should 
not regard it with abhorrence. To suppose him, then, to approve and 
love such a character, is to suppose him to approve of that which he 
sees to be deserving of his absolute reprobation, and to love that 
which he knows merits nothing but his hatred."* Such a course of 
procedure cannot be ascribed to a God of infinite purity, and hence 
none but the regenerate shall enter into life eternal. But this necessity 
is evident, 

3. From the character of God as a righteous Governor. — Were he 
to confer upon the unregenerate the blessings which are promised to 
the virtuous as their proper reward, he would equally desert- his charac- 
ter and his government, and would overthrow the wisdom, the equity, 
and the benevolent end of his moral administration. To crown the 
unregenerate with eternal life would be a declaration on the part of God 
that they deserved the same proofs of his favor as his obedient children, 
and were therefore of the same character; that rebels were faithful 
Bubjects; that enemies were friends; and that, though he had denounced 

* Dwight's Theology, vol. 2, p. 407. 



Chap. 9.] EEGE3TERATI0N. 429 

them as objects of his wrath, they were nevertheless the objects of his 
infinite complacency. " This would be no other than a final declaration 
on his part that right and wrong, holiness and sin, were the same 
things ; that his law, and the government founded on it, were intro- 
duced to no purpose, unless to excite wonder and fear in his intelligent 
creatures ; that the redemption of Christ was accomplished to no end ; 
and that all the Divine conduct, solemn, awful, and sublime as it has 
appeared, was wholly destitute of any object, and really of no import- 
ance in the view of the Infinite mind."* If we would avoid these and 
similar absurdities, we must admit the necessity of regeneration and 
holiness of character in order to the rewards of eternal life. But regen- 
eration is necessary, 

4. To qualify men for the happiness of heaven. — "Heaven is the 
seat of supreme and unmingled happiness ; of enjoyment solid, sincere, 
and eternal ; the foundation on which, so far as creatures are concerned, 
this happiness ultimately rests, is their holy or virtuous character. All 
their affections, all their pursuits, all their enjoyments, are virtuous with- 
out a mixture. Hence heaven is called the high and holy place, and, 
from the dispensations of God toward these unspotted beings, is termed 
the habitation of his holiness. With such companions a sinner could 
not accord, such affections he could not exercise, in such pursuits he 
could not unite, in such enjoyments he could not share. This is easily 
and familiarly demonstrated. Sinners do not love virtuous persons 
here ; they exercise no virtuous affections, engage in no virtuous pur- 
suits, and relish no virtuous enjoyments. Sinners in the present world 
love not God, trust not in the Redeemer, delight not in Christians, and 
regard neither the law of God nor the Gospel of his Son with compla- 
cency of heart. Sinners in this world find no pleasure in the Sabbath, 
nor in the sanctuary ; and never cordially unite either in the prayers or 
the praises then and there offered up to their Maker. 

" How, then, could sinners find happiness in heaven ? That glorious 
world is one vast sanctuary ; and the endless succession of ages which 
roll over its happy inhabitants are an everlasting sabbath. ' They rest 
not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which 
was, and is, and is to come.' As the worship of God is uniformly 
burdensome to sinners here, the same worship must be at least 
equally burdensome to them there. If, then, a sinner is to be admitted 
into heaven, it is absolutely necessary that he should have a new heart, 
a new disposition. Otherwise it is plain, that amid all the blessings 
of that delightful world, he would find nothing but disgust, mortifica- 
tion, and sorrow."f 

III. The means of Regeneeation. 

The regeneration of a sinner is emphatically a work of the Holy Spirit. 
In the performance of this work, however, he is not bound by any 
* Dwight's Theology, vol. 2, p. 408.. \ Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 408, 409. 



430 REGENERATION. [Book IV. 

specific rules or mode of procedure ; for he performs his operations in a 
sovereign manner, and can work without the intervention of any visible 
means whatever. But there are certain ordinances of Divine appoint- 
ment which were evidently intended to be the means of our salvation, 
and consequently, the means of our regeneration. Connected with these 
Divine institutions are " exceeding great and precious promises ;" so 
that in the proper use of them we may expect to escape from our moral 
corruption, and to be made " partakers of the Divine nature." As 
means, therefore, of regeneration, we may notice, 

1. The inspired Word. — "The law of the Lord is perfect," says 
David, " converting the soul." Psa. xix, % St. Paul in addressing 
Timothy says, " From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, 
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is 
in Christ Jesus." And then he immediately adds this very important 
testimony respecting the saving efficacy of the inspired word : " All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; that the man 
of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 
2 Tim. iii, 15. Of the same import is the testimony of St. James and 
St. Peter. " Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." 
James i, 18. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- 
ruptible by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." 1 Peter 
i, 23. How appropriate, then, is the exhortation of our Lord : " Search 
the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal life." 

2. The Ministry of the Gospel. — This is the great instrument that 
God has appointed to turn sinners " from darkness to light, and from 
the power of Satan unto God." Hence, St. Paul declares of the Gospel, 
that " it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ;" 
and speaks of it as " the sword of the Spirit." The numerous conver- 
sions recorded in the New Testament were chiefly effected through the 
preaching of the Gospel. It came to them who heard it, as the apostle 
says, " not in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, 
and in much assurance." It was ^hile Peter preached the Gospel on 
the day of Pentecost that the multitude cried out, under penitential 
awakenings, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" It was while 
Philip " preached Jesus " that the eunuch believed ; and while Paul 
" spake unto the women " by the river side that Lydia's heart was 
opened. In speaking of his success among the Corinthians he says, " In 
Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel." 1 Cor. xiv, 15 ; 
and on the same ground he calls Onesimus his son, whom he had 
"begotten" in his bonds. (Philemon 10.) It was, therefore, with great 
confidence that St. Paul could say, " The weapons of our warfare are 
not carnal, but mighty through God." 2 Cor. x, 4. 

3. Prayer. — The Holy Spirit is expressly promised to those who seek, 
in the exercise of prayer, for his saving influences. "If ye then, being 



Chap. 9.] REGENERATION. 431 

evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children ; how much more 
shall vour heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" 
Luke xi, 18. Whatever means of regeneration may be employed, none 
can supersede the use of prayer. It is indispensably requisite in all 
cases, and if persisted in with importunity and humble dependence 
upon God it will infallibly prevail. It is not possible that he should 
mock us by exciting our desires and encouraging our supplications, and 
then disappointing and rejecting us. When the penitent thief prayed, 
" Lord, remember me," our Lord replied, " To-day shalt thou be with 
me in paradise ;" which clearly involves the regeneration of the suppli- 
ant. The prayer of the publican was, " God be merciful to me a sin- 
ner ;" but he " went down to his house justified," and, consequently, 
regenerated. We have therefore great encouragement to pray, in the 
language of David, " Create in me a clean heart,- O God ; and renew a 
right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence ; and take 
not thy Holy Spirit from me." Psa. li, 10, 11. 

These are the ordinary means through which and by which the Holy 
Spirit operates upon the human mind, and produces in man that moral 
change which is denominated regeneration or the new birth. And though 
we would not attempt to confine the Holy Spirit to any definite mode 
of operation, yet, so far as we are concerned, we have no right to expect 
the regeneration of our souls, except by a believing application to the 
Father of our spirits, through the mediation of Christ and in the use of 
these and other divinely appointed means. We are not to suppose, 
however, that the efficiency by which this great moral renovation is 
effected is in the means themselves. If we are "born again" we are 
" bokn" of the Spirit," by whose direct agency alone we can be made 
the children of God. 

We will close this chapter by subjoining a few inferences which natur- 
ally follow from the preceding discussion. And, 

(1.) It follows that baptism is not regeneration.* We mean not to 
derogate from the honor of that Divine ordinance when we assert that 
too much dependence has been placed upon it. Being an institution of 
Christ, it ought to be religiously observed, not only as the appointed 
mode of admission into the visible Church, but as a means in which we 
may ask and expect the communication of that grace of which it is so 
significant an emblem. But it ought not to be forgotten, that it is only 
an emblem or outward sign of an inward work ; and for this very rea- 
son it cannot be regeneration. It is " not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh" which saves us, "but the answer of a good conscience 

* We admit that the term "regeneration" may be properly applied to water baptism. 
This follows from the language of our Lord, " horn of water" and from the use of the term 
"regeneration by the Christian Fathers, as expressive of this ordinance. But we must 
make a distinction between regeneration as a mere outward sign, and regeneration as an 
inward and spiritual grace. It is in the latter sense we employ the term. 



432 REGENERATION. [Book IV. 

toward God ;" and this is not to be attained without a spiritual renova- 
tion. It is therefore manifest that baptism is an outward and vjsible 
sign, while regeneration is an inward and spiritual grace. The former 
is the act of man purifying the body; the latter, a change divinely 
wrought in the soul. The one is therefore as distinguishable from the 
other as the soul is from the body, or as water is from the Holy Spirit. 
But we may observe, 

(2.) That " as the new birth is not the same thing with baptism, so 
it does not always accompany baptism: they do not constantly go 
together. A man may possibly be ' born of water,' and yet not be ' born 
of the Spirit.' There may sometimes be the outward sign where there 
is not the inward grace. ' The tree is known by its fruits :' and hereby 
it appears too plain to be denied, that divers of those who were children 
of the devil before they were baptized continue the same after baptism ; 
c for the works of their father they do.' They continue servants of sin, 
without any pretense to either inward or outward holiness." * Like Simon 
Magus, though they have received the outward washing, yet they are 
still " in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." But we 
infer, 

(3.) That regeneration is not the same with sanctification. This is 
indeed taken for granted by many, who therefore speak of regeneration 
as a progressive wwk. But though this is true of sanctification, it is not 
true of regeneration, which is at once complete. Regeneration "is a 
part of sanctification, not the whole ; it is the gate to it, the entrance 
into it. When we are born again then our sanctification, our inward 
and outward holiness, begins ; and thenceforward we are gradually to 
'grow up into him who is our head.' This expression of the apostle 
admirably illustrates the difference between one and the other, and fur- 
ther points out the exact analogy there is between natural and spiritual 
things. A child is born of a woman in a moment, or at least in a very 
short time : afterward he gradually and slowly grows, till he attains to 
the stature of a man. In like manner a child is born of God in a short 
time, if not in a moment. But it is by slow degrees that he afterward 
grows up to the measure of the full stature of Christ. The same rela- 
tion, therefore, which there is between our natural birth and our growth, 
there is also between our new birth and our sanctification." f This, 
however, will be more clearly seen when we come to speak of the latter. 
* Wesley's Works, vol. i, p. 405. f Ibid., vol. i, p. 406. 



Chap. 10.] ADOPTION. 433 



CHAPTER X. 

ADOPTION. 

Having considered, to some extent, the subject of regeneration, we will 
now direct our attention to that of adoption, which is a large and com- 
prehensive blessing, concomitant with justification. What we shall say 
upon this subject will be included under the three following heads : 1. The 
nature of adoption; 2. Its evidence; and, 3. The benefits which it secures. 
"We will consider, 

I. The natuke of Adoption. 

Adoption, in its literal sense, signifies the act of receiving a stranger 
into a family, and conveying to him all the rights, privileges, and bene- 
fits belonging to a natural or legitimate child. To adopt children in 
this manner has, it is well known, been a custom generally prevailing 
in all ages, and probably in all nations. Thus children were adopted 
among the Egyptians, the Jews, the Romans, and other ancient nations ; 
and the same custom exists in the Christian nations of Europe and in our 
own country. 

Among the Romans the ceremony of adoption consisted in buying the 
child to be adopted from his parents for a sum of money formally given 
and taken. The parties appeared before the magistrate in the presence 
of five Roman citizens ; and the adopting father said to the child, " Art 
thou willing to become my son ?" to which the child replied, " I am 
willing." Then the adopter, holding the money in his hand, and at the 
same time taking hold of the child, said, " I declare this child to be my 
son according to the Roman law, and he is bought with this money," 
which was given to the father as the price of his son. Thus the relation 
was formed according to law; and the adopted son entered into the 
family of his new father, assumed his name, became subject to his author- 
ity, and was made a legal heir to the whole of the inheritance, or to a 
share of it if there were any other sons.* 

Of the same nature is that transaction in the Divine economy by 
which men are acknowledged to be the children of God. We may, 
therefore, define adoption, according to the scriptural sense of the term, 
to be that gracious act of God by which we are acknowledged to be of 
the number and become entitled to all the privileges of his children. 

It is supposed by some that adoption is virtually the same with jus- 
tification — that it diners from the latter only in the manner in which it 
exhibits the relation of believers to God. It is admitted that adoption, 
as well as justification, is a relative change, and that the same general 

* See Kennet's Eoman Antiquities. 
28 



434 adoption. [Book IV. 

idea is involved in both ; for whether we say that a sinner passes from a 
state of guilt and condemnation to a state of justification, or that he is 
taken from the kingdom of darkness and adopted into the family of God, 
we express the same fact, only in different terms. But adoption implies 
something more than the pardon of sin, which is the central thought in 
justification. It is more particularly expressive of that covenant rela- 
tion into which God graciously receives those who become justified and 
regenerated by acknowledging them to be his people, and declaring 
himself to be their God. 

The term is applied to the Israelites in their collective capacity, " to 
whom," as St. Paul says, " pertaineth the adoption" because God had 
acknowledged them as his children, and had entered into a covenant 
with them ;* but in its proper and fullest import it is applied only to 
believers in Christ. " God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made 
under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might 
receive the adoption of sons." Gal. iv, 4, 5. Those who are made the 
subjects of this adoption " are no more strangers and foreigners, but fel- 
low-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." Eph. ii, 19. 
They are taken into that covenant relation which is so clearly and forc- 
ibly described by the prophet, as quoted by St. Paul : " For this is the 
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, 
saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them 
in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a 
people." Heb. viii, 10. 

Though justification, regeneration, and adoption are in some respects 
so blended, like the colors of the bow in the heavens, that their precise 
boundaries cannot be ascertained, yet there is this general distinction to 
be observed, that justification consists in the pardon of the guilty, 
regeneration in the moral renovation of the unholy, and adoption in the 
gracious reception of those who are alienated from God and disinherited, 
as his acknowledged children. Adoption is, therefore, sufficiently dis- 
tinct from justification, and from every other display of Divine grace 
in the remedial system, to require a distinct consideration. It is a sub- 
ject, moreover, which involves some of the most interesting and encour- 
aging views that are anywhere revealed in the system of saving grace. 

As in civil adoption the adopted son originally belonged to a different 
family from that into which he was received, so mankind are by nature 
strangers to the family of God. They are " aliens from the common- 
wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having 
no hope, and without God in the world." Eph. ii, 12. Our Lord said 
to the unbelieving Jews, " Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts 
of your father ye will do." John viii, 44. And the apostle declares, 
" He that committeth sin, is of the devil." 1 John hi, 8. But even to 
such the Gospel holds out the glorious privilege of becoming the sons of 
* See Exod. iv, 22 ; Dent, v, 2, 3 ; xiv, 1, 2 ; Jer. xxxi, 9. 



Chap. 10.] adoption. 435 

God. Let them but renounce their allegiance to the prince of darkness, 
and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and they will at once be admit- 
ted into God's own family, and be entitled to all the privileges of his 
children. 

"We have seen that in civil adoption the consent of the person to be 
adopted was demanded and publicly expressed. So also in spiritual adop- 
tion, though the privilege is freely offered to us in the Gospel, yet it 
does not become ours until we personally accept it ; which implies the 
exercise of justifying faith. " As many as received him, to them gave 
he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his 
name." John i, 12. Those who thus receive Christ are made partakers 
of the grace of adoption, to which belong freedom from a servile spirit, 
the special love and care of God, a filial confidence in him, free access 
to him at all times and under all circumstances, a title to the heavenly 
inheritance, and the Spirit of adoption. This leads us to consider, 

II. The evidence of Adoption. 

It is allowed by all sober divines that some comfortable persuasion, or 
at least hope of the Divine favor, is attainable by true Christians and is 
actually possessed by them, except under the influence of bodily infirm- 
ities, and in peculiar seasons of temptation, and that all true faith is 
in some degree personal and appropriating. 

By those who admit, that upon previous contrition and faith in Christ 
an act of justification takes place by which we are reconciled to God 
and adopted into his family, a doctrine which has been established, it 
must also be admitted, either that this act of mercy on the part of God 
is entirely kept secret from us, or that there is some means by which 
we may know it. If the former, there is no remedy for doubt and fear 
and tormenting anticipation, which must be great, as our repentance is 
deep and genuine ; and so there can be no comfort, no freedom, no 
cheerfulness of spirit in religion ; which contradicts the sentiments of all 
Churches and all their theologians. What is still more important, it con- 
tradicts the word of God.* 

If, then, we come to know that we are justified, by what means do we 
obtain this knowledge ? We believe the doctrine of Scripture to be, 
that the children of God have the inward witness or testimony of the 
Holy Spirit to their adoption or sonship ; from which flows a comforta- 
ble persuasion or conviction of their present acceptance with God, and 
the hope of future and eternal glory. 

The apostle says, " Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again 
to fear ; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, 
Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that 
we are the children of God." Rom. viii, 15, 16. Again: "God sent 
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them 
that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 
* See Rom, v, 1, 2, 11 ; 1 Peter i, 8. 



436 adoption. [Book IV. 

And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into 
your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Gal. iv, 4-6. 

On these two passages we may remark : 1. That the Spirit here 
spoken of as being " sent forth," and as witnessing " with our spirit," 
is not the personified spirit or genius of the Gospel, as some would have 
it, but the Spirit of God ; and hence he is called " the Spirit itself" or 
himself, and " the Spirit of his Son." 2. That upon our obtaining par- 
don or actual redemption from the curse of the law, the Spirit is sent 
forth into our hearts. 3. That the office of the Spirit is, to remove 
servile fear ; to inspire filial confidence in God as our Father, which 
stands opposed to the fear produced by the " spirit of bondage ;" and 
to bear a direct testimony to our adoption, or to "witness with our 
spirit that we are the children of God." 

On the subject of this witness or testimony of the Spirit there are 
four different opinions. These, in the first place, we will briefly state, 
and then offer such remarks upon them as the case may seem to 
require. 

1. A brief statement of different opinions in regard to the witness 
of the Spirit.— And, 

(1,) It is the opinion of some, that the testimony which the Holy 
Spirit bears to our adoption consists alone in the moral effects which 
he produces within us; and that the witness of our own spirit is noth- 
ing more than a consciousness of possessing faith. This is called the 
reflex act of faith, by which a person, conscious of believing, reasons in 
this manner : " I know that I believe in Christ, therefore I know that I 
shall obtain everlasting life."* 

(2.) Another opinion is, that there is but one witness, the Holy 
Spirit, acting concurrently with our own spirit. " The Spirit of God," 
says Bishop Bull, " produces those graces in us which are the evidences 
of our adoption. It is he who, as occasion requires, illuminates our 
understanding, and assists our memory in discovering and recollecting 
those arguments of hope and comfort within ourselves. But God's 
Spirit doth witness with, not without our spirit and understanding, in 
making use of our reason in considering and reflecting upon those 
grounds of comfort which the Spirit of God hath wrought in us, and 
from them drawing this comfortable conclusion to ourselves, that ? we 
are the sons of God.' " With this notion is generally connected that 
of the entire imperceptibility of the Spirit's operations as distinguished 
from the operations of our own mind. 

(3.) The third opinion which we will notice is, that the Spirit of God 
bears a direct testimony to the mind of the believer that he is a child 
of God, but that this is the privilege of only a few favored persons. 
Of this notion it is a sufficient refutation, that the apostle, in the texts 
before quoted, speaks of believers in general, and does not restrain the 
* Hill's Lectures, book 5, chap. 2. 



Chap. 10.] adoption. 437 

attainment from any who seek it. He places it, in this respect, on the 
ground of all the other blessings of the new covenant. 

(4.) The fourth opinion, and the one which we believe to be in accord- 
ance with the Scriptures, is, that the evidence of our adoption is twofold : 
a direct testimony of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness, by an " inward 
impression on the soul," that we are the children of God, and are recon- 
ciled to him ; and an indirect testimony, arising from the work of the 
Spirit in the heart and life, which St. Paul calls the testimony of our 
own spirit ; for this is clearly inferred from his expression, " the Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit." The compound verb ovfijiapTvpei, 
which the apostle uses in this place, literally signifies to testify or bear 
witness together, or at the same time with another, or to add one's testi- 
mony to that of another. It agrees, therefore, with the literal render- 
ing of the word, as it does also with other passages, to conjoin this testi- 
mony of the Holy Spirit with those confirmatory proofs of our adoption 
which arise from his work within us, and which may, upon examination 
of our state, be called the testimony of our own spirit or conscience. 
To this testimony the apostle refers in the same chapter : " But ye are 
not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell 
in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of 
his ; for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of 
God." Rom. viii, 9, 14. 

This testimony of our own spirit, or indirect testimony of the Holy 
Spirit by and through our own spirit, is considered, then, as confirma- 
tory of the direct testimony of the Spirit of God. " How am I assured," 
says Mr. "Wesley, " that I do not mistake the voice of the Spirit ? 
Even by the testimony of my own spirit; by 'the answer of a good 
conscience toward God.' Hereby I shall know that I am in no delusion, 
that I have not deceived my own soul. The immediate fruits of the 
Spirit, ruling in the heart, are 'love, joy, peace, bowels of mercies, 
humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering.' And the 
outward fruits are the doing of good to all men, and a uniform obedi- 
ence to all the commandments of God."* 

2. We will now offer a few remarks upon these opinions, and for 
the establishment of the one last presented. — And, 

(1.) It must be evident, from what has already been said, that to the 
fact of our adoption two witnesses and a twofold testimony must be 
allowed. But the main consideration is, whether the Holy Spirit gives 
his testimony directly to the mind by impression, suggestion, or other- 
wise, or mediately by our own spirit, in some such way as is described 
by Bishop Bull in the extract above given ; by " illuminating our 
understanding, and assisting our memory in discovering and recollecting 
those arguments of hope and comfort within ourselves," which arise 
from " the graces which he has produced in us." But to this statement 
* Wesley's Works, vol. i, page 92. 



438 Adoption. p [BooklV. 

of the doctrine we object, that it makes the testimony of the Holy- 
Spirit, in point of fact, nothing different from the testimony of our own 
spirit ; and that by holding but one witness it contradicts St. Paul, who, 
as we have seen, holds two. For, the testimony is that of our own con- 
sciousness of certain moral changes which have taken place, no other 
is admitted ; and, therefore, it is but one testimony. Nor is the Holy 
Spirit brought in at all, except to qualify our own spirit to give witness. 
The argument is, that the Holy Spirit works certain moral changes in 
the heart, and these are the evidence of our sonship. The Spirit is, 
therefore, entirely excluded as a witness, although the apostle declares 
explicitly that he gives witness to the fact, not of a moral change, but 
of our adoption. 

(2.) Further : suppose our mind to be so assisted by the Holy Spirit 
as to discern the reality of his work in us, and suppose this to be taken 
as the evidence of our adoption, to what degree must this work of the 
Spirit advance before it can be evidence of this fact ? It were absurd 
to allege penitence as the proof of our pardon, since that supposes that 
we are still under condemnation. What further work of the Spirit, 
then, is the proof? The reply to this usually is, that though repentance 
should not be evidence of pardon, yet when faith is added this becomes 
evidence, since God has declared in his word that we are "justified by 
faith," and that whosoever " believeth shall be saved." 

To this we reply, that though we should become conscious of both 
repentance and faith, either by a " reflex act of our own mind," or by 
the assistance of the Spirit, this would be no evidence of our forgiveness. 
Justification is an act of God which passes in his own mind, and is 
declared by no outward sign. It follows, therefore, that no one can 
know when he is justified without some direct testimony from God, unless 
it had been stated in his word that in every case pardon is dispensed 
when repentance and faith have reached some definite degree clearly 
pointed out; and, also, unless we were expressly authorized to judge 
when they have reached this degree, and thence to conclude our justifi- 
cation. But we have no such particular description of faith, nor are we 
authorized to make ourselves judges of the fact, whether the act of par- 
don as to us has passed the mind of God. The apostle in the passages 
quoted above has assigned that office to the Holy Spirit ; but it is in no 
part of Scripture ascribed to us. 

If, then, we have no authority from God to conclude that we are par- 
doned when faith is added to repentance, the whole becomes a matter 
of mere inference ; and we argue, that having " repentance and faith," 
we are forgiven ; in other words, that these are sufficient evidences of 
pardon. But repentance and faith are exercised in order to pardon. 
How, then, can they be the evidences of it ? We have, through the 
mercy of God, the promise of pardon to all who repent and believe; but 
repentance is not pardon, and faith is not pardon. They are only its 



Chap. 10.] . Adoption. 439 

prerequisites. Each is a sine qua non, but surely not the pardon itself, 
nor can either be considered the evidence of pardon without an absurdity. 
As pardon, therefore, must have an attestation of higher authority, and 
of a distinct kind, the only attestation conceivable which remains is, the 
direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Either this must be acknowledged, 
or a painful uncertainty as to the genuineness or the required measure 
or degree of our repentance and faith, quite destructive of comfort, must 
remain throughout life. 

(3.) But if neither our repentance, nor even a consciousness of faith, 
when joined with it, can be the evidence of our adoption, it has been 
urged that the fruits of the Spirit, when found in our experience, must 
be sufficient evidence of the fact, without supposing a more direct testi- 
mony of the Holy Spirit. The ' • fruits " thus referred to are those 
enumerated by St. Paul, Galatians v, 22, 23. They are, " love, joy, peace, 
long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." 

Two things will here be granted, and they greatly strengthen the argu- 
ment for a direct testimony of the Holy Spirit : first, that these fruits 
are found only in those who have been received, by the remission of 
their sins, into the Divine favor. This is proved from what immediately 
follows : " And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the 
affections and lusts." For to be " Christ's" and to be " in Christ" are 
the same as to be in a justified state : " There is no condemnation to 
them which are in Christ Jesus" Secondly, that these graces are fruits 
of the Spirit of adoption. This is proved by the connection of the 
words with verse 1 8, " But if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under 
the law;" which passage is exactly parallel to the fifth and sixth verses of 
chapter four: "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might 
receive the adoption of sons ; and because ye are sons, God hath sent 
forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." 
These fruits of the Spirit, then, presuppose not only our pardon, but 
pardon previously attested and made known to us, the persuasion of 
which conveyed to the mind, not by them, but by the Spirit of adoption, 
is the foundation of these fruits ; at least, of that " love, joy," and 
" peace," which are mentioned first, and which must not be separated 
in the argument from the others. 

Nor can these fruits result from anything but manifested pardon. 
They cannot themselves manifest our pardon, for they cannot exist till 
it is manifested. If we " love God," it is because we know him as 
God reconciled. If we have "joy in God," it is because "we have 
received the atonement." If we have "peace," it is because we are 
"justified by faith." God, conceived of as angry, cannot be the object 
of filial love. Pardon unfelt supposes guilt and fear still to burden the 
mind, in which case "joy" and "peace" cannot exist. But by the 
argument of those who make these fruits of the Spirit the media of 
ascertaining the fact of our forgiveness and adoption, we must be sup- 



440 adoption. . [Book IV. 

posed to love God, while yet we feel him to be angry with us ; to 
rejoice and have peace, while the fearful apprehensions of the conse- 
quences of unremitted sins are not removed. If this is impossible, as it 
certainly is, then the ground of our love, peace, and joy is pardon 
revealed and witnessed, directly and immediately, by the Spirit of adop- 
tion. Thus it is established, that the witness of the Spirit is direct and 
not mediate. 

(4.) This doctrine has been generally termed the doctrine of assur- 
ance ; and perhaps the expressions of St. Paul, the " full assurance of 
faith," and the " full assurance of hope," may warrant the use of the 
word. But as there is a current and generally understood sense of this 
term among persons of the Calvinistic persuasion, implying that the 
assurance of our present acceptance and sonship is an assurance of our 
final perseverance, and of our indefeasible title to heaven, the phrase, a 
comfortable persuasion or conviction of our justification and adoption, 
arising out of the Spirit's inward and direct testimony, is to be pre- 
ferred. 

There is another reason for the sparing and cautious use of the term 
assurance, which is, that it seems to imply, though not necessarily, the 
absence of all doubt, and to shut out all those lower degrees of persua- 
sion which may exist in the experience of Christians. For, as our faith 
may not at first, or at all times, be equally strong, the testimony of the 
Spirit may have its degrees of strength, and our persuasion or convic- 
tion be proportionately regulated. Yet if faith is genuine, God respects 
even its weaker exercises, and encourages its growth by affording 
measures of comfort and degrees of this testimony. Nevertheless, 
while this is allowed, the fullness of this attainment is to be pressed 
upon every one that believes. " Let us draw near," says the apostle, 
" with full assurance of faith." 

(5.) It may serve to remove an objection which is sometimes made to 
this doctrine, and to correct an error into which some have fallen in 
stating it, to observe, that this assurance, persuasion, or conviction is 
not of the essence of justifying faith ; that is, justifying faith does not 
consist in the assurance of our being forgiven through Christ. If we are 
justified by faith, as the Scriptures declare, that faith must evidently 
precede our justification ; and it is equally evident that we must be jus- 
tified before we can have any assurance of it. To say that we must be 
persuaded of our acceptance with God in order to our justification, 
is the same as to say, that we are justified by believing what is 
false. We conclude, therefore, that this inward and direct testimony 
of the Spirit to our adoption follows justification, and is one of its 
results. 

(6.) The second testimony is that of our own spirit, and consists in 
" a consciousness of our having received, in and by the Spirit of adop- 
tion, the tempers mentioned in the word of God as belonging to his 



Chap. 10.] ADOPTION. 441 

adopted children : a consciousness that we are inwardly conformed, by 
the Spirit of God, to the image of his Son, and that we walk before him 
in justice, mercy, and truth, doing the things which are pleasing in his 
sight."* But this testimony, let it be observed, is not to the fact 
of our adoption directly, but to the fact that we have, in truth, received 
the Spirit of adoption, and that we are under no delusive impressions. 

Our own spirit can take no cognizance of the mind of God as to our 
actual pardon, and can bear no witness to that fact. The Holy Spirit 
only, who knows the mind of God, can be this witness ; and if the fact 
that God is reconciled to us can only be known to him, by him only can 
it be attested to us. But we are competent witnesses, from our own 
consciousness, that such moral effects have been produced within us 
as it is the office of the Holy Spirit alone to produce ; and thus we have 
the testimony of our own spirit that the Holy Spirit is with us and in 
us, and that he who bears witness to our adoption is, in truth, the Spirit 
of God. 

Of the four opinions on this subject which we have noticed, the last 
only is fully conformable to the Scriptures, and ought, therefore, to be 
believed and taught. The first opinion is refuted in our examination of 
the second ; for what is called "the reflex act of faith" is only a conscious- 
ness of believing, which we have shown must be exercised in order to 
pardon, but cannot be an evidence of it. The second opinion has been 
examined more at large, and its errors have been pointed out. The 
third opinion was refuted when it was first stated. 

III. The Benefits of Adoption. 

The relation between God and his children which is brought into 
existence by the act of adoption, involves in its consequences a long 
train of rights and obligations, of duties and blessings. Of these only a 
few can be mentioned in the present connection, and even these must 
be mentioned in a very summary manner. The benefits secured to us 
by adoption are chiefly comprehended under these two leading ideas — 
reception into the family of God, and a title to all the privileges of his 
children. 

1. By adoption we are received into the family of God. — In regard 
to this benefit, which God so freely bestows upon the returning prodi- 
gals of our race, we will offer the following remarks : 

(1 .) That it has been granted to men in every age of the world. The 
sacred historian informs us that as early as the birth of Enos, the grandson 
of Adam, men began " to call upon the name of the Lord ;" or, as the 
margin has it, and perhaps more correctly, " to call themselves by the 
name of the Lord." The meaning seems to be that they began to take 
upon themselves the name of God, and to be regarded by others as his 
children ; and the title by which they began to be known at this early 
period has been continued through every succeeding age of the Church. 
* Wesley's Works, vol. i, p. 87. 



442 adoption. [Book IV. 

In Genesis vi, 2, we read of " the sons of God," who, in all probability, 
were the descendants of Seth, and who were thus denominated to dis- 
tinguish them from the wicked progeny of Cain, and to characterize 
them as God's adopted children. That such persons were meant by the 
phrase " sons of God," is sufficiently manifest from the use which is 
•made of it in other passages. In Job i, 6, and xxxviii, 7, it is applied 
to the holy angels. When, therefore, men receive the same appellation 
it is because they are supposed to belong to the same family, and to be 
the children of the same Father. 

In the communications which God made to the family of Abraham 
this relation is more explicitly declared. To say to them as he did, 
Leviticus xxvi, 12, "I will be your God, and ye shall be my people," 
was virtually to tell them that he would be their Father, and they should 
be his children. When God sent Moses to demand the release of his 
people, he commanded him to say to Pharaoh, " Thus saith the Lord, 
Israel is my son, even my first-born." Exod. iv, 22. In the same man- 
ner Moses declared to the same people, " Ye are the children of the 
Lord your God." Deut. xiv, 1. So also it is said to the rulers of Israel, 
"All of you are children of the Most High." Psa. lxxxii, 6. 

But though this relation is thus clearly recognized in the Scriptures 
of the Old Testament, yet it is more distinctly revealed in those of the 
New. " As many as received him, to them gave he power to become 
the sons of God." John i, 12. " As many as are led by the Spirit of 
God, they are the sons of God." Rom. viii, 14. " Ye are all the chil- 
dren of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Gal. iii, 26. "Beloved, now are 
we the sons of God." 1 John iii, 2. Many other passages might be 
quoted in proof of the fact that God acknowledges all true believers as 
his children, and members of his household ; but these are altogether 
sufficient for our present purpose. We may, then, proceed to remark, 

(2.) That this relation confers upon its subjects great dignity and 
honor. How glorious is the family with which believers become united ! 
First in dignity and honor is Jesus Christ himself, who, in his divine 
nature, is the eternal Son of God. But in our own nature he belongs to 
the heavenly family, in which he claims precedence, and holds the most 
distinguished place, as " the first-born among many brethren." Next in 
order are those glorious beings, the holy angels, who, having retained 
their purity and fidelity, have continued, without interruption, to enjoy 
the honor and felicity of their primeval state. Added to these are the 
glorified spirits redeemed from earth. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the 
prophets and apostles, the martyrs and confessors, and believers of every 
age and nation, are associated in one great brotherhood. When, there- 
fore, we become " the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," we 
are introduced into fellowship with the most glorious and dignified 
creatures in the universe. " Ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto 
the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumer- 



Chap. 10.] ADOPTION. 443 

able company of angels, to the general assembly and Church of the first- 
born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to 
the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the 
new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things 
than that of Abel." Heb. xii, 22-24. Well may the apostle exclaim, 
" Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that 
we should be called the sons of God!" 1 John iii, 1. But, 

2. By adoption we become entitled to all the privileges oft the chil- 
dren of God. — In consequence of this relation, he is to us all that is 
implied in the character of a Father, and will bestow upon us all that 
this character warrants us to expect. If we are his children, then have 
we "promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." 
He will, 

(1.) Provide for the wants of his children. — God does indeed pro- 
vide for the wants of all his creatures. He feeds the fowls of the air, 
and " the young lions seek their meat from God." He opens his hand 
and satisfies "the desire of every living thing." But the provision 
which he makes for the wants of his children is distinguished from that 
which he makes for others by this important consideration, that in 
kind, in degree, and in manner it is exactly such as is most promotive 
of their real welfare. " ~No good thing will he withhold from them 
that walk uprightly." Psa. lxxxiv, 11. "And we know that all things 
work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called 
according to his purpose." Rom. viii, 28. 

The provision which God makes for his children differs from that 
which he makes for other men in another important particular. It is 
secured to them by his own express promise, and rests on the immov- 
able foundation of his immutable veracity. Every one of them may 
therefore say with the psalmist, "The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall 
not want. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of 
my life." Psa. xxiii, 1, 6. 

(2.) He will protect them. — That from the cradle to the grave we are 
exposed to evil, in an endless variety of forms, is a standing dictate of 
all human experience; and we know that against this exposure no 
human foresight can effectually provide. " Except the Lord keep the 
city, the watchman waketh but in vain." Psa. cxxvii, 1. But God is 
the keeper of his children. He says to every one of them, " The Lord 
is thy shade upon thy right hand. The sun shall not smite thee by 
day, nor the moon by night. The Lord shall preserve thee from all 
evil ; he shall preserve thy soul. The Lord shall preserve thy going- 
out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore." 
Psa. cxxi, 5-8. In every situation of life in which the children of God 
may be placed his eye is upon them for good. " When thou passest 
through the waters, I will be with thee ; and through the rivers, they 
shall not overflow thee. When thou walkest through the fire thou 



4M adoption - . [Book IV. 

shalt not be burnt ; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. For I am 
the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour." Isa. xliii, 2, 3. 
God may sometimes suffer a pious man to fall into apparent evil for the 
promotion of his spiritual good, but "though he" thus "fall, he shall 
not be utterly cast down ; for the Lord upholdeth him with his hand." 
Psa. xxxvii, 24. To all, therefore, who fully trust in God, means of 
protection and defense are ever provided, even in seasons apparently 
hopeless, find often in ways utterly unexpected. 

(3.) He will instruct them. — "This work he accomplishes by his 
Providence, by his word, by his ordinances, by his ministers, by the life 
and conversation of Christians, by the Divine example of his Son, and 
by the peculiar communications of his Spirit. In all these ways he 
furnishes them with whatever knowledge and whatever useful impres- 
sions they need to receive, and trains them up as children, in effect- 
ual preparation for the perfect state of manhood to which they will 
arrive in his heavenly kingdom. 

" This, however, is the peculiar office of the Spirit of truth. As he 
originally revealed the truth of God concerning our salvation, so, 
throughout their earthly pilgrimage, he discloses to the children of 
God the Divine import of his own instructions, and gives them eyes to 
see, ears to hear, and hearts to understand and obey his own glorious 
precepts. He teaches them the true evangelical use of religious ordi- 
nances, of trials, of afflictions, and of blessings ; dissolves their doubts, 
removes their perplexities, shows them the path of life, takes them by 
the hand and guides them through the mazes of this earthly wilderness 
to the heavenly Canaan."* "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
they are the sons of God." Rom. viii, 14. 

(4.) He will administer to them suitable correction. — Of this neces- 
sary but benevolent parental office, St. Paul gives us a detailed account 
in the twelfth chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews. " My son, despise 
not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked 
of him ; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every 
son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with 
you as with sons, for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not ? 
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are 
ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore, we have had fathers of our 
flesh, which corrected us ; and we gave them reverence. Shall we not 
much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live? For 
they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure ; but 
he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no 
chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous ; never- 
theless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruits of righteousness unto 
them which are exercised thereby." 

In this summary account we have a complete view of all that is most 
* D wight's Theology, vol. ii, p. 514. 



Chap. 10.] adoption. 445 

interesting in this subject. We learn particularly that correction is a 
distinctive privilege of the children of God, and that those who are not 
corrected are not his children ; that God corrects his children, not arbi- 
trarily, or wantonly, but with a benevolent intention, " that we might 
be partakers of his holiness and live ;" that for this reason, as well as 
on account of the prerogatives and perfections of God, we are bound to 
receive our corrections with reverence, submission, patience, and forti- 
tude ; and that if we do thus receive them the result will be our present 
good and eternal felicity. 

(5.) He will bestow upon them a glorious inheritance. — Children, by 
the law of nature and of nations, inherit the property of their father ; 
and an adopted son possesses all the rights and privileges of a son by 
descent. At the death of the person who adopted him he is legally 
entitled to his property. There is also an inheritance which belongs to 
the family of God, and every one who is received into it becomes an 
heir. "If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with 
Christ." Rom. viii, 17. 

The Scriptures everywhere abound in the most encouraging descrip- 
tions of that inheritance which awaits the children of God. It is called 
" a kingdom," and a " better country." It is " eternal life," a " crown 
of life," a " crown of righteousness," a " crown of glory," an " eternal 
weight of glory." St. Peter calls it " an inheritance incorruptible, and 
undefiled, and that fadeth not away." " It doth not yet appear," says 
the sacred penman, "what we shall be; but we know that when he 
(Christ) shall appear we shall be like him; for we shall see him as 
he is." 

" Whatever God now is to angels and glorified saints, and whatever 
he will be to them through an endless duration, for all this the adopted 
sons of God are authorized to hope. Even in this world, how happy 
does the earnest of the inheritance make them ! How divine the peace 
which sheds its influence upon their souls ! How pure and elevating 
the joy which, in some select hour, springs up in their bosoms ! How 
are they raised above the pains and the pleasures of life, while, in the 
contemplations of faith, they anticipate their future abode in the higher 
regions of the universe ! But these are only an earnest."* In due time, 
however, the full reward will be realized. 

* Dick's Theology, Lee. 13. 



446 ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. [Book IV. 



CHAPTER XI. 

ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. 

We have already spoken of justification, regeneration, and adoption, and 
we come now to consider another benefit of redemption which is dis- 
tinctly marked and graciously promised in the Holy Scriptures : this is, 
the entire sanctification or PERFECTED holiness of believers. In the 
investigation of this subject we will consider the nature, the attainabil- 
ity, the time, and the manner of this gracious work, and then answer 
some objections which are urged against it. 

I. The Nature of Entire Sanctification. 

It may be defined to be an entire conformity of heart and life to the 
will of God, as made known to us in his word. The term " to sanctify," so 
often employed by the sacred writers, has two leading meanings. 1. It 
signifies to consecrate, to separate from a common use, and dedicate to 
God and his service. 2. It signifies to cleanse from moral corruption, 
to make holy. In both these senses it applies to the subjects of entire 
sanctification. They are consecrated to God, and cleansed "from all 
unrighteousness." 

This state of grace is also expressed in Scripture by such terms as 
purity of heart, " holiness," and " perfection." Thus, " Blessed are the 
pure in heart" Matt, v, 8. " Being made free from sin, and become 
servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness." Rom. vi, 22. "Leav- 
ing the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection." 
Heb. vi, 1. But that we may guard against improper views respecting 
the nature of entire sanctification, we remark, 

1. That it does not differ in essence from, regeneration. — It intro- 
duces no new principle into the experience of the Christian, but is only 
the growth and perfection of that moral change which is effected in 
" every one that is born of the Spirit." Regeneration, says Mr. "Wesley, 
" is a part of sanctification, not the whole ; it is the gate to it, the 
entrance into it. When we are born again then our sanctification, our 
inward and outward holiness, begins ; and thenceforward we are grad- 
ually to grow up in Him who is our head."* In regeneration there is 
an infusion of spiritual life into the soul, in which life all the graces of 
the Christian character are virtually included ; but in the work of sanc- 
tification these graces are unfolded and matured. 

2. It does not imply a state of indef edibility . — Absolute perfection 
belongs to God alone, and lies infinitely beyond the reach of all created 
beings. Nor is it possible that we should attain either angelic or 

* Wesley's Works, vol. i, p. 406. 



Chap. 11.] ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. 447 

Adamic perfection. As to angels, they are a superior order of intelli- 
gences ; and though their knowledge is doubtless limited, yet we must 
suppose that it is perfect in its kind — that their understanding is as 
clear as the light, and their judgment always true. And as they have 
ever maintained that sinless purity in which they were originally created, 
the fire of their holy affections must burn with an intensity, and their 
services must be performed with a faultless precision and rectitude, 
which are not possible to fallen man in his present state of being. 

" Neither can any man, while he is in a corruptible body, attain Adamic 
perfection. Adam, before his fall, was undoubtedly as pure, as free 
from sin as the holy angels. In like manner his understanding was as 
clear as theirs, and his affections as regular. In virtue of this, as he 
always judged right, so he was able always to speak and act right. 
But since man rebelled against God the case is widely different with 
him. He is no longer able to avoid falling into innumerable mistakes, 
consequently he cannot always avoid wrong affections ; neither can he 
always think, speak, and act right. Therefore man, in his present state, 
can no more attain Adamic than angelic perfection."* 

3. It does not exclude the possibility of temptation. — To be tempted 
is reconcilable to the highest degree of moral perfection. This is evi- 
dent from the history of our first parents, No one will deny that in 
their primitive state they were perfectly pure and holy ; and yet they 
were subjects of temptation. But it is more strikingly evident from the 
history of our Lord. Though he was " holy, harmless, undefiled," and 
" separate from sinners," yet he " was in all points tempted like as we 
are." It is, therefore, not to be expected that any state of grace which we 
can attain in this life will place us beyond the reach of temptation. 
Indeed, a liability to temptation seems to be necessarily involved in the 
very idea of a probationary state. 

What, then, is implied in that state of grace which we call entire 
sanctification ? To this we answer, that it implies the maturity or per- 
fection of all the fruits of the Spirit which compose the Christian char- 
acter. These are " love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, 
faith, meekness, temperance." Gal. v, 22, 23. It implies obedience to 
the law of love. " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great 
commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself." Matt, xxii, 37-39. "Love," says St. Paul, "is 
the fulfilling of the law." Rom. xiii, 10. We conclude, therefore, that 
the whole of entire sanctification or Christian perfection is included in 
the phrase, " perfect love," as employed by St. John. He tells us that 
" there is no fear in love ; but perfect love casteth out fear." 

II. The attainability of Entire Sanctification. 

That a state of perfected holiness or entire sanctification is attain- 
* Wesley's Works, vol. ii, p. 168. 



448 ENTIKE SANCTIFICATIOJS". [Book W. 

able may be argued from various considerations drawn from the sacred 
Scriptures. 

1. Such a state is expressly commanded. — Thus God said to Abra- 
ham, "Walk before me, and be thou perfect ." Gen. xvii, 1. And our 
Lord said to his disciples, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father 
which is in heaven is perfect." Matt, v, 48. These passages are not to 
be considered as requiring of men a perfection like that of the Deity, 
unlimited and absolute ; but a perfection is certainly required, and it can 
mean nothing less than an entire conformity of heart and life to the will 
of God. Hence we are commanded to be ''''holy in all manner of con- 
versation," and to love God with all the heart, soul, and mind, and our 
neighbor as ourselves. 

Are we, then, capable of complying with these requirements ? To 
say we are not, is virtually to say, with the slothful servant, that God 
is a hard master, "reaping where" he has "not sown, and gathering 
where" he has "not strewed." It is to say that we are held responsi- 
ble for what is not in our power — that for the non-performance of what 
is absolutely impossible we are in danger of eternal fire; for it is 
expressly declared that without holiness " no man shall see the Lord." 
But if it be allowed that we are capable of complying with these injunc- 
tions, the possibility of holiness or Christian perfection will necessarily 
follow. 

2. To the obtainment of this state we are frequently exhorted. — " I 
beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present 
your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your 
reasonable service." Rom. xii, 1. "Having, therefore, these promises, 
dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and 
spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 2 Cor. vii, 1. In these 
passages, which are only a specimen of what might be quoted, a full 
deliverance from sin is clearly indicated. The latter passage especially 
goes to the extent of the entire sanctification of the whole man, a cleans- 
ing "from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit;" the obtainment of per- 
fect holiness. 

3. This gracious state is also made the subject of explicit promise. — 
" Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your 
sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though they be red 
like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isa. i, 18. "Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. From all your filthiness, 
and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." Ezek. xxxvi, 25. "Thou 
shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people from their sins." 
Matt, i, 21. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive 
us our sin^ and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.'''' 1 John i, 9. 
" The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin." It must be 
evident to every candid mind that these Scriptures hold out a deliver- 
ance from the very inbeing of sin, as well as from its guilt and domin- 



Chap. 11.] ENTIKE SANCTIFICATION. 4-i9 

ion. It follows, therefore, that if we would not charge God with tan- 
talizing man by such " great and precious promises," we must admit 
the attainability of entire sanctification. 

4. It is, moreover, the object of special prayer. — David prayed, 
" Create in me a clean heart, O God ; and renew a right spirit within 
me." Psa. li, 10. Our Lord taught his disciples to pray, that the will 
of God might " be done in earth as it is in heaven." Here the standard 
of moral rectitude and service is placed sublimely high. The rule to be 
observed is the will of God. The manner in which his will should be 
obeyed is, as it is done in heaven. If angels are sinless and pure, ren- 
dering to God a full and consistent obedience, then are we authorized, 
by the language of our Lord himself, to pray for that degree of sanctity 
which will at least preserve us from all voluntary transgression. If the 
attainability of entire holiness is impossible, how can the putting of this 
prayer into our lips be harmonized with sincerity and truth ? But that 
it is attainable, is manifest from our Lord's own prayer for his beloved 
disciples. In addressing the Father in their behalf he uses this notable 
petition : " Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is truth." John 
xvii, 17. 

We next adduce in this connection the expressions of St. Paul, which 
exhibit his views of this important subject. " Now the God of peace, 
that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd 
of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you 
perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is 
well-pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ." Heb. xiii, 20, 21. 
Again : " The very God of peace sanctify you wholly / and I pray 
God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto 
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess. v, 23. This passage 
evidently embraces all that is included in the doctrine of holiness ; and 
it therefore follows, either that the apostle prayed for what he believed 
to be unattainable, or that he believed in the attainability of entire sanc- 
tification. But as the former is too absurd to be supposed, the latter 
must be admitted. 

To this we add that sublime prayer which the apostle offered for his 
Ephesian brethren. " For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and 
earth is named, that he would grant you according to the riches of his 
glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man ; 
that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith ; that ye, being rooted 
and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what 
is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height ; and to know the -love 
of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the 
fullness of God." Eph. iii, 14-19. 

5. The doctrine of entire holiness is confirmed by personal examples. 
— Thus it is said of Noah that he " was a just man, and perfect in his 

29 



450 ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

generations," and that he " walked with God." Gen. vi, 9. It is also 
said of Job that he " was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, 
and eschewed evil." Job i, 1. And the sacred historian informs us that 
Zacharias and Elisabeth " were both righteous before God, walking in 
all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Luke i, 6. 
When our blessed Redeemer, who knows the hearts of all men, " saw 
Nathanael coming to him," he exclaimed, " Behold an Israelite indeed, 
in whom is no guile!" John i, 47. In accordance with these examples, 
St. Paul speaks of those who had attained Christian perfection. " How- 
beit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect." 1 Cor. ii, 6. "Let 
us, therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded." Phil, iii, 15. 

These are some of the leading arguments in support of the attainable- 
ness of entire holiness or Christian perfection. He who examines them 
with care and candor will hardly fail to conclude that it is the Chris- 
tian's privilege to be cleansed " from all unrighteousness ;" to love the 
Lord with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself; and to perfect 
" holiness in the fear of God." 

III. The time of this gracious woek. 

The attainableness of entire holiness is not so much a matter of debate 
among Christians as the time when we are authorized to expect it. 
For, as it is an axiom in Christian doctrine that " without holiness no 
man shall see the Lord," unless we admit the doctrine of purgatory, 
the entire sanctification of the soul, and its complete renewal in holiness, 
must take place in this world. 

While this is generally acknowledged, however, among spiritual 
Christians, it has been warmly contended by many that the final stroke 
which destroys our natural corruption is only given at death ;*and that 
the soul, when separated from the body, and not before, is capable of 
that moral purity which the Scriptures exhibit to our hope. 

If this view can be refuted, then it must follow, unless a purgatory 
of some description be allowed after death, that the entire sanctification 
of believers is attainable at any time previous to their dissolution. 
To the opinion in question, then, there appear to be the following fatal 
objections : 

1. That we nowhere find the promises of entire sanctification restricted 
to the article of death, either expressly or in fair inference from any 
passage of Scripture. 

2. That we nowhere find the circumstance of the soul's union with 
the body represented as a necessary obstacle to its entire sanctification. 
The principal passage which has been urged in proof of this from the 
New Testament is that part of the seventh chapter of Romans in which 
St. Paul, speaking in the first person of the bondage of the flesh, has 
been supposed to describe his own state as a believer in Christ. But it 
is evident from the context itself, as well as from many other portions 
of Scripture, that the apostle is speaking, not of one who is justified by 



Chap. 11.] ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. 451 

faith in Christ, but of one struggling in legal bondage, and brought 
to that point of conviction of sin and self-despair which must always 
precede an entire trust in the merits of Christ for salvation. 

To see the contrast which the apostle draws between one thus held 
in legal bondage and those who are freely justified, let us turn to the 
preceding chapter. " Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ? 
God forbid! How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer 
therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with 
him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
ness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his 
death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing 
this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin 
might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he 
that is dead is freed from sot." So clearly does the apostle show that 
he who is bound to the " body of death," as mentioned in the seventh 
chapter, is not in the state of a believer ; and that he who has a true 
faith in Christ " is freed from sin." 

3. The doctrine before us is disproved by those passages of Scripture 
which connect our entire sanctification with subsequent habits and acts 
to be exhibited in the conduct of believers before death. Thus, in the 
quotation just given from Romans vi, " Knowing this, that the body of 
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." So 
the exhortation in 2 Corinthians vii, 1, refers to the present life, and not 
to the hour of dissolution ; and in 1 Thessalonians v, 23, the apostle 
first prays for the entire sanctification of the Thessalonians, and then for 
their preservation in that holy state "unto the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." 

4. It is disproved, also, by all those passages which require us to 
bring forth the graces and virtues which are usually called the fruits of 
the spirit. That these are to be produced during our life, and to be 
displayed in our spirit and conduct, cannot be doubted ; and we may 
then ask whether they are required of us in perfection and maturity. 
That they are so required we have already shown ; and if so, in this 
degree of purity and perfection they necessarily suppose the sanctifica- 
tion of the soul from all antagonistic evils. Meekness in its perfection 
supposes the extinction of all sinful anger; perfect love to God sup- 
poses that no affection remains contrary to it ; and so of every other 
perfect internal virtue. 

The inquiry, then, is reduced to this, whether these graces, in such 
perfection as to exclude the opposite corruptions of the heart, are of 
possible attainment. If they are not, then we cannot love God with 
our whole heart ; then we must be someftmes sinfully angry ; and how, 
in that case, are we to interpret that perfectness in these graces which 



452 ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

God has required of us and promised to us in the Gospel ? For if the 
perfection meant be so comparative as that we may be sometimes sin- 
fully angrry and may sometimes divide our hearts between God and the 
creature, we may apply the same comparative sense of the term to our 
words and actions, as well as to our affections. Thus, when the apostle 
prays for the Hebrews, that God would make them "perfect in every 
g*,o4 work to do his will," we must understand this perfection of evan- 
gelical good works so that it shall sometimes give place to opposite evil 
works, just as good affections must sometimes necessarily give place to 
the opposite evil affections. 

This view can scarcely be soberly entertained by any enlightened 
Christian; and it must, therefore, be concluded that the standard of 
our attainable Christian perfection, as to the affections, is a love of God 
so perfect as to rule the heart and exclude all rivalry, and a meekness 
so perfect as to cast out all sinful anger and prevent its return ; and 
that as to good works, the rule is that we shall be so " perfect in every 
good work " as to do the will of God habitually, fully, and constantly. 
If Ave fix the standard lower we let in a license totally inconsistent with 
that Christian purity which is allowed by all to be attainable, and we 
make every man his own interpreter of that comparative perfection 
which is often contended for as that only which is attainable. 

5. The doctrine of the necessary indwelling of sin in the soul till 
death supposes that the seat of sin is in the flesh, and thus it harmo- 
nizes with the pagan philosophy, which attributed all evil to matter. 
The doctrine of the Bible, on the contrary, is that the seat of sin is in 
the soul ; and it makes it one of the proofs of the fall and corruption 
of our spiritual nature that we are in bondage to the appetites and 
motions of the flesh. Nor does the theory which places the necessity 
of sinning in the connection of the soul with the body account for the 
whole moral case of man. There are sins, as pride, covetousness, malice, 
and others, which are wholly spiritual ; and yet no exception is made 
in this doctrine of the necessary continuance till death as to them. 
There is, surely, no need to wait for the separation of the soul from the 
body in order to be saved from evils which are the sole offspring of the 
spirit; and yet these are made as inevitable as the sins which more 
immediately connect themselves with our animal nature. 

We conclude, therefore, as to the time of our complete sanctification, 
that it can neither be referred to the hour of death, nor placed subse- 
quent to the present life. A freedom from the dominion of sin is an 
attainment which believers are to experience in time, and one which is 
necessary to that completeness of holiness, and of those active and 
passive graces of Christianity by which alone they are fully qualified to 
glorify God and edify mankind. 

IV. The manner of sancttfication. 

Not only the time, but the manner also, of our sanctification has 



Chap. 11.] ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. 453 

been matter of controversy. Some contend that all attainable degrees 
of it are required by the process of gradual mortification and the 
acquisition of holy habits. Others allege that it is instantaneous, and a 
fruit of an act of faith in the Divine promises. 

That the regeneration which accompanies justification is a large 
approach to this state of perfect holiness, and that all dying to sin and 
all growth in grace advances us nearer to this point of entire sanctity, 
are points so obvious that in regard to them there can be no reasonable 
dispute. But these facts are not at all inconsistent with a more instant- 
aneous work, when, the depth of our natural depravity being more 
painfully felt, we plead in faith the accomplishment of the promises of 
God. The great question to be settled is, whether the deliverance 
sighed for is held out to us in these promises as a present blessing. 
And, from what has already been said, there appears to be no ground 
to doubt this, since no small violence would be offered to the passages 
of Scripture already quoted, as well as to many others, by the opposite 
opinion. 

All the promises of God which are not expressly, or from their order, 
referred to future time, are objects of present trust, and their fulfillment 
now is made conditional only upon our faith. They cannot, therefore, 
be pleaded in our prayers with an entire reliance upon the truth of God 
in vain. The general promise that we shall receive " all things whatso- 
ever we ask in prayer, believing," comprehends, of course, all things 
suited to our case which God has engaged to bestow ; and if the entire 
renewal of our nature is included in the number, without limitation of 
time, except that in which we ask in faith, then to this faith shall the 
promise of entire sanctification be given. This, in the nature of the 
case, supposes an instantaneous work, immediately following our entire 
and unwavering faith. We are not to suppose, however, that there is 
any degree of sanctification attainable in this life, whether instanta- 
neously or otherwise, which precludes the possibility of subsequent 
growth. It is, therefore, proper that we should regard the work of 
entire sanctification as being both instantaneous and progressive. 

V. Objections to the doctrine of entire sanctification 

ANSWERED. 

The only plausible objections made to this doctrine may be answered 
in few words. It has been urged, 

1. That this state of entire sanctification supposes future impeccabil- 
ity. — Certainly not ; for if angels and our first parents fell when in a 
state of immaculate sanctity, the renovated man cannot be placed, by his 
entire deliverance from inward sin, beyond the reach of danger. It has 
been supposed, 

2. That this supposed state renders the atonement and intercession 
of Christ superfluous in future. — But the very contrary of this is mani- 
fest when the case of an evangelical renewal of the soul in righteous- 



454 ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. [Book IV. 

ness is understood. This proceeds from the grace of God in Christ, 
through the Holy Spirit, as the efficient cause ; it is received by faith 
as the instrumental cause ; and the state itself into which we are raised 
is maintained, not by inherent native power, but by the continual pres- 
ence and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit himself, received and 
retained in answer to ceaseless prayer, which prayer has respect solely 
to the merits of the death and intercession of Christ. But it has been 
further alleged, 

3. That a person delivered from all inward and outward sin has 
no longer need to use the petition of the Lord's prayer, " forgive us 
our trespasses," because he has no longer need of pardon. To this we 
reply, 

(1.) It would be absurd to suppose that any person is placed under 
the necessity of sinning in order that a general prayer, designed for 
men in a mixed condition, might retain its aptness to every particular 
case. 

(2.) Trespassing of every kind and degree is surely not supposed by 
this prayer to be continued, in order that it might be used always in the 
same import ; for otherwise it might be pleaded against the renunciation 
of any trespass or transgression whatever. 

(3.) This petition is still relevant to the case of the entirely sanctified 
and evangelically perfect Christian, since neither angelic nor Adamic 
perfection is in question ; that is, a perfection measured by the perfect 
law of God, which in its obligations contemplates all creatures as hav- 
ing sustained no injury by moral lapse, and, therefore, requires perfect 
obedience. But men, though wholly sanctified, are nevertheless natur- 
ally weak and imperfect, and so liable to mistake and infirmity, as well 
as to defect, in the degree of that absolute obedience which the law of 
God demands. It may also be remarked that we are not the ultimate 
judges of our own case as to the defects or fullness of our obedience, 
and we are not, therefore, to put ourselves in the place of God, who 
"is greater than our heart." St. Paul says, "I know nothing by 
myself," that is, I am conscious of no offense, " yet am I not thereby 
justified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord." To him, therefore, the 
appeal is every moment to be made through Christ the Mediator, and 
he, by the renewing testimony of his Spirit, assures every true believer 
of his acceptance in his sight. 



Chap. 12.] THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. . 455 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. 

We have examined the leading features of the remedial system, so far 
as it applies to man in his present state of being, beginning with the 
doctrine of atonement, and concluding with that of entire sanctification. 
But that Christians may understand the danger to which they are 
exposed, as well as the nature and extent of that " great salvation " 
which is provided for them in Christ Jesus, we will now inquire whether 
it is possible for true believers to fall from their state of grace and 
perish everlastingly. 

This has long been a question of debate between Calvinistic and 
Arniinian divines ; the former taking the negative, and the latter the 
affirmative. That we may examine the subject with all possible fairness, 
let us ascertain, 1. How far these contending parties agree; 2. The 
ground on which the Calvinistic theory is based; and, 3. The argu- 
ments by which the possibility of total apostasy is supported. 

I. HOW EAR THESE CONTE]ST)rjS"G PARTIES AGREE. 

All genuine Arminians agree with Calvinists in asserting, 

1. That believers are preserved in the way of life and salvation by 
Divine power. — Thus St. Peter asserts, that they " are kept by the 
power of God through faith unto salvation." 1 Peter i, 5. The same 
doctrine is taught in the doxology with which Jude closes his Epistle. 
" Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you 
faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy." 

2. That no adverse agency or influence shall ever be able to separate 
true believers from the love of God. — Of such our Lord says, " They 
shall never perish, neither 'shall any man pluck them out of my hand." 
John x, 28. " WTio shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall 
tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, 
or sword? Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, 
through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, 
nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, 
nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall 
be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our 
Lord." Rom. viii, 35-39. 

3. That God has promised persevering grace to all faithful believers. 
— He will present us " holy, and unblamable, and unreprovable in his 
sight," if we " continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not 
moved away from the hope of the Gospel." Col. i, 22, 23. Again, 



456 . THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. [Book IV. 

St. Peter declares, that if we give all diligence to add to our " faith, 
virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, 
and charity," we "shall never fall" 2 Pet. i, 5-7, 10. 

4. That true believers may fall into gross and scandalous sins. — ■ 
Thus Lot fell into drunkenness and incest ; David, into adultery and 
murder ; Solomon, into gross idolatry ; and Peter, into a denial of his 
Lord, with oaths and imprecations. It is moreover agreed on all hands, 
that those who commit such horrid sins are guilty in the sight of God, 
and unfit for the kingdom of heaven, until they are again renewed 
through repentance and faith. But the Calvinistic theory is, that a truly 
regenerate man " can neither totally nor finally fall away from a state 
of grace ; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eter- 
nally saved."* Let us then examine, 

II. The ground on which this theory is bIsed, or the argume?its 
by which it is supported. 

1. The doctrine is argued from, the perfections of God. — It is said 
that " God, as a being possessed of infinite love, faithfulness, wisdom, 
and power, can hardly be supposed to suffer any of his people finally to 
fall into perdition. This would be a reflection on his attributes, and 
argue him to be worse than a common father. His love to his people 
is unchangeable, and therefore they cannot be the objects of it at one 
time and not at another. His faithfulness to them and to his promise 
is not founded upon their merit, but on his own will and goodness. 
This, therefore, cannot be violated. His wisdom foresees every obstacle 
in the way, and is capable of removing it, and of directing them in the 
right path. It would be a reflection on his wisdom, after choosing a 
right end, not to choose right means in accomplishing the same. His 
power is insuperable, and is absolutely and perpetually displayed in their 
preservation and protection."! 

In reply to this argument it is only necessary to remark that there is 
nothing in it that cannot, with equal force, be employed against cer- 
tain facts the existence of which our opponents themselves admit. "We 
refer to the fall of angels and of our first parents. If such perfectly holy 
beings have fallen, and some of them to rise no more, how can we argue 
the impossibility of total apostasy from the perfections of God ? Are 
not these perfections the same now that they were before the fall of 
man and angels? The argument, therefore, proves too much, as it 
proves the impossibility of what has taken place. 

But is it indeed true, as this favorite argument assumes, that God's 
moral creatures cannot be the objects of his love at one time and not 
at another ? If it is, then it will follow either that God never loved 
"the angels which kept not their first estate," though they were at first 
his holy and happy creatures, or that he loves them still, though 
now " reserved in everlasting chains ;" both of which are too absurd 
* Conf., chap. 11, § 1. \ Buck's Theological Dictionary. 



Chap. 12.] THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. 457 

to be believed. It will follow, moreover, on the same principle, that 
God must remain perfectly the same to those who are now his regenerate 
children as he was to them in their unregenerate and rebellious state. 
But to suppose this is a reflection on the character of God and a contra- 
diction of his word. The key to the whole question is, that God ever 
loves what is morally good, and hates all moral evil. Hence, while 
creatures change, the love of God may be extended to them or withheld 
from them, according to their moral character, and yet God remain 
unchangeable, loving holiness and hating iniquity. But the unfrustrable 
perseverance of the saints is also argued, 

2. From certain doctrines peculiar to the Calvinistic scheme. — These 
are, 1. That some men and angels are unconditionally predestinated to 
everlasting life ; 2. That the covenant which God makes with his people 
is unconditional ; 3. That all for whom Christ died shall infallibly be 
saved ; 4. That the intercession of Christ secures the salvation of all for 
whom it is made; and, 5. That the Holy Spirit never forsakes any man 
whom he regenerates. As these are all questions of controversy, it will 
be time enough to receive them as so many grounds of argument when 
they are proved to be true. Till then they must be regarded as mere 
assumptions, and, consequently, as incapable of establishing the doctrine 
in proof of which they are adduced. But the advocates of the theory 
which we are considering attempt to support it, 

3. By direct Scripture testimony. — We will therefore proceed to an 
examination of the leading passages which they bring forward for this 
purpose. 

Job xvii, 9 : " The righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that 
hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger." But this is far from 
saying that no righteous man shall ever become unrighteous. If the 
passage is to be so understood, then we may safely assert, on the same 
principle, that no evil doer can ever be reformed ; for it is expressly said 
that "evil men and seducers shall wax icorse and worse." 

Psalm lxxxix, 30-35 : " If his children forsake my law, and walk not 
in my judgments ; if they break my statutes, and keep not my com- 
mandments ; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their 
iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not 
utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant 
will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once 
have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David." 

Every one must see that the covenant here spoken of related wholly 
to David and his seed. Had it, therefore, been absolute and uncondi- 
tional, this would not prove that such is God's covenant with all his spir- 
itual children. But that it was a conditional covenant, though expressed 
in absolute terms, is evident from what follows in the same connection. 
" But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine 
anointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant ; thou hast 



458 THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. [Book IV. 

profaned his crown, by casting it to the ground." Thus God did " alter 
the thing that" had "gone out of his lips," but without any impeach- 
ment of his truth. s 

Jeremiah xxxi, 3 : " I have loved thee with an everlasting love ; there- 
fore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee." Our opponents seem to 
quote this passage as an evidence that those whom God loves at one 
time always were and always will he the objects of his love. But there 
is certainly a wide difference between loving " with an everlasting love," 
in the sense of the text, and loving everlastingly, for the passage has no 
reference whatever to futurity — " I have loved thee with an everlasting 
love." ISTor do these words imply that no righteous man will ever turn 
from his righteousness, and so perish forever. They do not touch that 
question, but simply declare the strong and abiding love of God to the 
Jewish Church. To see this it is only necessary to read the passage in 
connection with the preceding context. " At the same time, saith the 
Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be 
my people. Thus saith the Lord, The people which were left of the 
sword found grace in the wilderness ; even Israel, when I went to cause 
him to rest." Then the prophet adds, speaking in the person of Israel, 
" The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved 
thee with an everlasting love ; therefore with loving-kindness have I 
drawn thee." 

Mark xvi, 16 : " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
Does this mean "he that believeth" at this moment "shall" certainly 
and inevitably " be saved ?" If this interpretation is good, then, by all 
the rules of speech, the other part of the sentence must mean, " he that 
believeth not" at this moment "shall" certainly and inevitably "be 
damned." This interpretation, therefore, cannot be admitted. The 
obvious meaning of the whole sentence is, " He that believeth," if he con- 
tinue to believe, " shall be saved ; but he that believeth not," if he con- 
tinue in unbelief, " shall be damned." 

John v, 24 : " He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that 
sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ; 
but is passed from death unto life." Here we remark, 1. That the 
present condition of true believers is called in Scripture " everlasting 
life," or "life eternal," first, because it is the same in nature with the 
life of heaven ; and secondly, because, in the order of saving grace, it 
leads to a life of glory. "This is life eternal," said our Lord, "that they 
might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
sent." John xvii, 3. 2. That all who truly believe pass from spiritual 
death into this state of spiritual life ; and, 3. That if they continue stead- 
fast they " shall not come into condemnation ;" for surely the passage 
cannot mean that when believers fall into gross sins, like David, Solo- 
mon, and Peter, they incur no condemnation. 

John x, 27, 28 : " My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and 



Chap. 12.] THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. 459 

they follow me ; and I give unto them eternal life ; and they shall never 
perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Here we 
have only to ask, Who " shall never perish ?" The answer is, Those who 
hear the voice of Christ, and follow him. This promise is, therefore, 
so far from being unconditional, that the condition is clearly expressed. 

John xiii, 1 : " Having loved his own which were in the world, he 
loved them unto the end." The passage means nothing more than that 
our Lord continued to love his disciples "unto the end" of his own life. 
If it were therefore true that persons once in grace must forever remain 
in that state the doctrine could derive no support from this passage, 
except by a false interpretation. 

John xvii, 11:" Holy Father, keep through thine own name those 
whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." Calvinists 
have laid great stress upon this text as teaching the doctrine that all 
whom the Father has given to Christ in the covenant of grace must 
infallibly persevere to the end. And yet in the very next verse our 
Lord declares that one of those whom the Father had given him did not 
persevere to the end, but perished everlastingly. His own words are, 
" Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but 
the son of perdition." So, then, one of this number was finally lost, 
which shows very clearly that the phrase " those whom thou hast given 
me " signifies here, if not in most other places too, the twelve apostles, 
and them only. 

Romans viii, 38, 39: "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor 
life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor 
things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be 
able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our 
Lord." But what does this text prove in regard to the perseverance of 
the saints ? It proves that the apostle was at that time fully persuaded 
of his own perseverance — a persuasion which no doubt many Christians 
have at the present day called in Scripture " the full assurance of hope." 
It proves that he had the most unlimited confidence in the faithfulness 
and power of God to support his people in all the trials of life — a doc- 
trine which we most heartily believe, for it is written, "As thy days, so 
shall thy strength be." Deut. xxxiii, 25. But it does not prove the 
absolute and unconditional perseverance of all true believers to the end, 
for the apostle says, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjec- 
tion ; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself 
should be a castaway." 1 Cor. ix, 27. 

These Scriptures, and a few others, have been pressed into the service 
of the Calvinistic theory of perseverance ; but they utterly fail, when 
fairly interpreted, to establish the doctrine in support of which they are 
adduced. Nor is there a single passage in the Bible which, in its true 
import, proves the doctrine in question. But to be fully convinced of 
this, let us consider, 



460 THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. [Book IV. 

III. The arguments by which the possibility of total apostasy 

IS SUPPORTED. 

The simple question now before ns is this : Can a true believer so fall 
away as to perish everlastingly ? Believing the affirmative of this ques- 
tion to be the doctrine of the Bible, we will proceed to adduce some of 
the numerous arguments by which it is established. "We refer, 

1. To those passages of Scripture in which the doctrine is expressly 
taught. — Thus Ezekiel xviii, 24 : " But when the righteous turneth away 
from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to 
all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live % All his 
righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned. In his trespass 
that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall 
he die." 

That this is to be understood of eternal death appears evident from 
the twenty-sixth verse : " When a righteous man turneth away from his 
righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them ; (here is tem- 
poral death ;) for his iniquity that he hath done, shall he die." (Here 
is death eternal.) 

To evade the force of these passages some assert that the righteous- 
ness of which the prophet speaks does not imply true piety, but is a 
mere external or hypocritical righteousness. This, however, is a most 
unhappy shift, for it turns the language of the prophet into downright 
nonsense. Thus: When one who is hypocritically "righteous turneth 
away from his" hypocritical "righteousness, and committeth iniquity, 
shall he live?" Doubtless he shall not, as the interrogatory clearly 
implies. But this fact does not depend upon his turning away from 
his righteousness, unless it can be shown that hypocritical righteousness 
will secure eternal life. Again, " All his " hypocritical " righteousness 
that he hath done shall not be mentioned ;" that is, shall not be reck- 
oned to him. Happy circumstance ! that at least so much of his hypo- 
critical life is to be passed over in silence. But why? Because "he 
doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth." 
To escape these absurdities we must admit that one who is truly right- 
eous may nevertheless so fall away as to perish everlastingly. 

John xv, 1, 2, 6 : "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husband- 
man. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away. If a 
man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and 
men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." 

Here we may remark, 1. That the persons spoken of are branches in 
the true Yine, Christ Jesus ; 2. That some of these branches abide not 
in the Vine, but the Father taketh them away; 3. That the branches 
which abide not are cast forth, cast out from Christ and his Church ; 
4. That they are withered, and, consequently, are never grafted in 
again; and, 5. That they are also cast into the fire and burned. It is 
not possible for words more strongly to declare that even those who 



Chap. 12.] THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. 461 

are now branches of the true Vine may so fall from God as to perish 
forever. 

Romans xi, 17, 18, 21, 22 : "If some of the branches be broken off, 
and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in among them, and with 
them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree; boast not 
against the branches. For if God spared not the natural branches, 
take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness 
and severity of God : on them which fell, severity ; but toward thee, 
goodness, if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou also shalt 
be cut off." 

Here we observe, 1. That the olive-tree spoken of is the invisible and 
spiritual Church of God, consisting of all true believers. For, says the 
apostle, " If the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy ; and if the 
root be holy, so are the branches." And again, " Because of unbelief 
they were broken off; and thou standest by faith." 2. The persons 
addressed were actually grafted into this olive-tree, and were therefore 
holy branches. 3. These branches were still liable to be cut off from 
the olive-tree into which they were then grafted ; and, 4. No intimation 
is given that the broken off branches were ever grafted in again. We 
conclude, therefore, that those who are members of the spiritual invisi- 
ble Church may nevertheless so apostatize as to perish everlastingly. 

1 Timothy i, 18, 19: "War a good warfare; holding faith, and a 
good conscience ; which some having put away, concerning faith have 
made shipwreck." Here it is only necessary to remark, 1. That the 
persons alluded to, such as Hymeneus and Alexander, had once that 
faith which purifies the heart and produces a good conscience ; for other- 
wise they could not have "put it away." 2. That of this faith they 
"made shipwreck," which necessarily implies that it was totally and 
finally lost ; for a vessel once wrecked can never be recovered. The 
apostle himself represents one of these men at least as being irrecover- 
ably lost. His words are, "Alexander the coppersmith did me much 
evil; the Lord reward him according to his works." 2 Tim. iv, 14. 
Hence one who possesses faith and a good conscience may so fall away 
as to perish everlastingly. 

Hebrews vi, 4-6 : " For it is impossible for those who were once 
enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made par- 
takers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and 
the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them 
again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God 
afresh, and put him to an open shame." 

That the persons whom the gpostle describes in this passage were 
true believers, cannot be denied without great absurdity ; for it would 
be a most glaring inconsistency to characterize the unregenerate by the 
terms and phrases which are here employed. They " were once enlight- 
ened y" an expression familiar with St. Paul, but which he never applied 



462 THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. [Book IV. 

to those who were not true believers. " The eyes of your understand- 
ing being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his call- 
ing, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints." 
Eph. i, 18. And again, "For God, who commanded the light to 
shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light 
of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 
2 Cor. iv, 6. 

They had " tasted of the heavenly gift /" which was something more 
than a mere intellectual or sentimental approval of the Gospel, as some 
would have it. For, the heavenly gift is distinguished both from the 
Holy Spirit, and from the word of God mentioned afterward, which 
leaves us no choice but to interpret it of Christ. And then, to taste 
Christ is to receive his grace and mercy in the remission of sins. " If 
so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious." 1 Peter ii, 3. 

They " were made partakers of the Holy Ghost;" which evidently 
means, in the language of the New Testament, to receive the Holy 
Ghost in his sanctifying and comforting influences. " Repent, and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission 
of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts ii, 38. 
Again, " The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy 
Ghost which is given unto us." Rom. v, 5. 

They "tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to 
come ;" in other words, they heartily embraced the word of truth, and 
realized the saving power of the Gospel dispensation. And yet these 
persons, after possessing all these high attainments, so fell away that it 
was impossible " to renew them again unto repentance." Consequently, 
their fall was total and final. 

But it will be said, the apostle only makes a supposition, "if they 
shall fall away." We answer, the apostle makes no supposition at all ; 
for there is no if in the original. His words are, nai Traparteoovrag, 
and having fallen away. We have, therefore, in this passage a proof 
almost as clear as language can make it, that those who are made the 
subjects of converting and sanctifying grace may nevertheless so fall 
away as to perish everlastingly. 

Hebrews x, 26-29 : " For if we sin willfully after that we have received 
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 
but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation 
which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses's law 
died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer 
punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden 
under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, 
wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite 
unto the Spirit of grace ?" 

Here it is undeniably plain, 1. That the person referred to as an 
example was once sanctified by the blood of the covenant ; for, to sup- 



Chap. 12.] THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. 463 

pose, as some have done, that it was Christ himself who was sanctified 
by this blood, is too absurd to need refutation. 2. That he afterward, 
by known and willful sin, trod under foot the Son of God ; treating his 
person and authority with the utmost contempt, as did the Jews in his 
crucifixion. 3. That he counted the blood of Christ, by which the new 
covenant between God and man was ratified, sealed, and confirmed, 
" an unholy thing ;" regarding it as destitute of any sacrificial or aton- 
ing merit. 4. That he insulted the Holy Spirit ; and, 5. That by these 
means he incurred a sorer punishment than temporal death, namely, 
death eternal. Therefore, those who are sanctified by the blood of 
Christ may yet fall away and perish forever. 

There is one remark which we desire to make in regard to the last 
two passages quoted. It is this : Though they establish, beyond suc- 
cessful controversy, the possibility of total and final apostasy, yet they do 
not prove, as some have urged by way of objection to the doctrine, 
that no apostate can ever be recovered. They do not apply to back- 
sliders of every kind ; but only to those who rejected the whole Chris- 
tian system, abjured Christ, and joined with the blaspheming Jews in 
calling him an impostor. Thus they rendered their salvation impossible 
by willfully and maliciously rejecting the only means of recovery. But 
these passages do not apply to any apostate who still believes in Christ 
as the Redeemer of men, and acknowledges Christianity as a Divine 
revelation. To all such there remains an available " sacrifice for sins," 
and they may yet be recovered " out of the snare of the devil." 

Many other texts of Scripture might be adduced in proof of the doc- 
trine in question ; but those which we have quoted are quite sufficient 
for our present purpose. We will, therefore, proceed to argue the pos- 
sibility of apostasy, 

2. From Scripture examples. — We now assume it as a fact, which we 
think the following cases will prove, that the Scriptures furnish us with 
examples of total and final apostasy. We refer, 

(1.) To the case of Saul, king of Israel. — That he was once in a 
state of grace and favor with God is sufficiently clear from what is 
recorded of him in 1 Samuel x, 6, 7, 9. Samuel said to him, " The 
Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with 
them, and shalt be turned into another man. And let it be, when these 
signs are come unto thee, that thou do as occasion serve thee ; for God 
is with thee. And it was so, that when he had turned his back to 
go from Samuel, God gave him another heart." Thus we see that 
God gave Saul " another heart ;" that he was " turned into another 
man ;" that he possessed the spirit of prophecy, and that God was with 
him. 

But in 1 Samuel xxviii, 15, Saul tells Samuel, "I am sore distressed; 
for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me." 
And in 1 Samuel xxxi, 4, the sacred historian informs us that " Saul took 



464 THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. [Book IV. 

a sword, and fell upon it ;" thus destroying his own life. If, therefore, 
the doctrine of the apostle is true, that " no murderer hath eternal 
life abiding in him," Saul must have perished in his sins. 

(2.) Solomon. — It will startle some to hear the name of Solomon 
among those who are regarded as examples of total and final apostasy. 
We need not attempt to prove that he once enjoyed the Divine favor, 
for this is what no one will deny. But it will be asked, What evidence 
have we of his apostasy ? This question may be answered by a refer- 
ence to the eleventh chapter of the first book of Kings, where his 
unlawful marriages with strange women and his shameful idolatry are 
recorded. It is, moreover, plainly declared that " the Lord was angry 
with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of 
Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, and had commanded him 
concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods ; but he 
kept not that which the Lord commanded." True, we are often told 
that Solomon was reclaimed from all his backslidings ; but of this we 
have no evidence whatever. Indeed, the inspired record seems to con- 
tradict it ; for according to this, the last act of his life was an attempt 
to kill Jeroboam. Thus the sacred historian leaves his condition under 
a dark cloud, which forbids us to believe that he entered into life 
eternal. 

(3.) Judas Iscariot. — " But was not Judas a devil from the begin- 
ning ?" Certainly not. On the contrary, we have reason to believe 
that he was, when chosen as an apostle, the firm friend of our Lord. 
The psalmist speaks of him thus : " Yea, mine own familiar friend, in 
whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel 
against me." Psa. xli, 9. That this prophecy refers directly to Judas 
cannot be doubted, for it is so applied to him by Christ himself. (John 
xiii, 18.) Can we, then, seriously conclude that our Lord would hold 
familiar friendship with a devil, that he would receive him into his own 
family, and that he would send him forth to preach his Gospel and to 
cast out devils ? 

But it is said that our Lord called Judas a devil, and that he was, 
moreover, styled a thief. This is all true ; but we must remember that 
he also applied to Peter the term Satan, which is only another name for 
the same evil spirit. Are we therefore to conclude that Peter had never 
been in a state of grace ? Certainly not. It is also to be remembered 
that Judas was not called a devil until near the time when he wickedly 
betrayed his Master. That he became a wicked man is a matter of the 
clearest record. Hence it is asserted (John xiii, 27) that " Satan entered 
into him." Moreover, St. Peter declares that " Judas by transgression 
fell, that he might go to his own place." Acts i, 25. And it is also 
clear that he died under guilt, for he destroyed his own life. 

(4.) The Israelites who fell in the wilderness. — Of these we have an 
account in 1 Corinthians x, 1-5 : " Moreover, brethren, I would not that 



Chap. 12.] THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. 465 

ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the 
cloud and in the sea ; and did all eat the same spiritual meat ; and 
did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that spiritual 
Hock that followed them ; and that Rock was Christ. But with many 
of them God was not well pleased ; for they were overthrown in the 
wilderness" 

(5.) The last case of this kind which we will notice is that of Hymen- 
eus and Alexander : " Holding faith, and a good conscience ; which 
some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck. Of 
whom is Hymeneus and Alexander ; whom I have delivered unto Satan, 
that they may learn not to blaspheme." 1 Tim. i, 19, 20. It is some- 
times said that the faith which these persons possessed was not a true 
faith, and that the conscience referred to was not really a good con- 
science. And, therefore, though they are represented as falling from 
the favor of God, yet in reality they only fell from a profession of good- 
ness. To this the only necessary reply is, 1. That the conscience spoken 
of is emphatically called " a good conscience;" and, 2. That St. Paul 
exhorts his son Timothy to hold fast the very same faith and conscience 
which he ascribes to Hymeneus and Alexander. It follows, therefore, 
that they are examples of total and final apostasy. But our doctrine 
may be argued, 

3. From the cautions and warnings of the Scriptures against unfaith- 
fulness and apostasy. — Thus : " Let him that thinketh he standeth take 
heed lest he fall." 1 Cor. x, 12. " Therefore we ought to give the more 
earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we 
should let them slip." Heb. ii, 1. "Take heed, brethren, lest there be 
in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." 
Heb. iii, 12. "Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of 
entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it." Heb. 
iv, 1. "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great 
recompense of reward." Heb. x, 35. " Now the just shall live by faith ; 
but if any man draw back, (literally, if the just man draw back,) my 
soul shall have no pleasure in him." Heb. x, 38. "Ye therefore, beloved, 
seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away 
with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness." 2 Peter 
iii, 17. 

That these Scriptures are addressed to true believers will hardly be 
denied ; but if it is impossible for them to " fall," to " depart from the 
living God," to " cast away their confidence," or to " draw back unto 
perdition," why do the inspired writers use such warnings, cautions, and 
exhortations ? Will the advocates of the unfrustrable perseverance of 
the saints tell us that this is a means by which believers are preserved 
from apostasy ? This would certainly be in conflict with their own 
theory, which regards the perseverance of believers as being wholly 

30 



466 THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL APOSTASY. [Book IV. 

unconditional. Or, will they say that this system of caution and warn- 
ing is a means of exciting believers to watchfulness and proper Christian 
diligence ? If so, it will be proper to inquire whether this system is 
based on truth. If it is, then it will necessarily follow that there is a 
danger of apostasy, and that our doctrine is true. But if no such dan- 
ger exists, then we have the absurdity of supposing that the spiritual 
interests of Christians are promoted by a system of falsehood. The last 
argument which we will offer in support of our position is derived from 
the fact, 

4. That the present life is a state of probation. — A state of proba- 
tion is one in which the character of men is formed and developed pre- 
paratory to a state of retribution. It involves obligations to obedience ; 
commands and prohibitions ; inducements to do right, and temptations 
to sin, with a certainty of final reward or punishment, according to the 
character which may be formed under the various circumstances of trial. 
It also enters into the very nature of a probationary state that the err- 
ing may be recovered, and that the obedient may go astray ; for with- 
out this it would not be a state of trial. 

To deny that man is now in a state of probation is to deny the doc- 
trine of a final judgment ; for, in the economy of the Divine government, 
the one necessarily implies the other. If man has nothing to do in the 
formation of his own moral character, why is he required to " give 
account of himself to God ?" and how could God say to any of our race, 
" Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire ?" But if man is now in a pro- 
bationary state there is no degree of saving grace which he may not for- 
feit ; no height of holiness from which he may not fall. This is con- 
firmed by the history of all moral beings with whom we have become 
acquainted. Angels fell from heaven, and Adam fell from paradisaical 
holiness. And such is the similarity between all moral beings in a state 
of trial that the fall of angels and of our first parents is a corroborating 
fact in support of the doctrine that a state of probation involves the 
possibility of apostasy. v 



Chap. 1.] THE MORAL LAW. 467 



BOOK V. 

MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

Moeality, in a general sense, denotes virtue^ or the practice of moral 
duties. In a strictly theological sense it means a voluntary conformity 
of our moral actions to the will of God. By the morals of Christianity, 
therefore, we are to understand the practical duties which Christianity 
requires. Hence it becomes a matter of importance to know both 
what these duties are and how they ought to be performed. But before 
we proceed to investigate them in detail we will offer some remarks in 
regard to that system of moral law on which they all depend, and by 
which they are prescribed. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE MORAL LAW. 



By moral law we understand a law which prescribes to men their relig- 
ious and social duties ; or, in other words, the duties which we owe to 
God and to one another. Such a law, in its highest degree of perfec- 
tion, is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and 
in them only, the Divine authority of which has been fully established in 
our first book. 

Philosophers have entertained various and conflicting opinions in 
regard to what constitutes the ground of moral obligation ; but all 
Christians will agree that the will of God, which is ever in perfect 
accordance with rectitude, is the standard of right for all moral creat- 
ures, and ought to be obeyed. And as the Holy Scriptures are the only 
authoritative revelation of the Divine will, we will proceed to inquire 
into the manner in which they make known to us a system of moral 
law. To aid those who desire to gain a clear understanding of this sub- 
ject we will offer the following remarks : 

1. The morals of the Scriptures are not generally proposed to us in 



468 THE MORAL LAW. [Book V. 

the form of a regular code. — Even in the books of Moses, which, to a 
great extent, have the legislative form, all the principles and duties that 
constitute the full character of godliness under that dispensation are not 
made the subjects of formal injunction by particular precepts. They 
are partly unfolded in general principles, or often take the form of 
injunction in an apparently incidental manner, or as matters of obvious 
inference. A preceding code of traditionary moral law is also all along 
supposed in the writings of Moses and the prophets, as well as a cus- 
tomary ritual and a doctrinal theology, both transmitted from the 
patriarchs. 

This, too, is eminently the case with the Christian Scriptures. They 
suppose that all who believed in Christ admitted the Divine authority 
of the Old Testament, and they assume the perpetual authority of its 
morals as well as the truth of its fundamental theology. The constant 
allusions in the New Testament to the moral rules of the Jews and 
patriarchs, either expressly as precepts or as the data of argument, suffi- 
ciently guard us against the notion that what has not in so many words 
been re-enacted by Christ and his apostles is of no authority among 
Christians. In a great number of instances, however, the form is 
directly preceptive, so as to have all the explicitness and force of a reg- 
ular code of law, and is, as much as a regular code could be, a declara- 
tion of the sovereign will of Christ, enforced by the sanctions of eternal 
life and death. 

2. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, or 
Ten Commandments. — These were written by the finger of God on two 
tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai. These tables 
were deposited in the sacred chest, called the ark of the covenant, but 
copies of them were transcribed into the Pentateuch in Exodus xx, 
1-17, and in Deuteronomy v, 6-21. 

The giving of the law on Mount Sinai was the most solemn transac- 
tion which ever took place between God and man, and, therefore, it 
was introduced in the most solemn manner. In the morning of the day 
on which this law was given the presence of Jehovah became manifest 
by thunders and lightnings, a dense cloud on the mountain, and a ter- 
rific blast of a trumpet, so that the whole assembly were struck with 
terror and dismay. Shortly after the whole mountain appeared on fire, 
columns of smoke arose from it as the smoke of a furnace, and an earth- 
quake shook it from top to base ; the trumpet continued- to sound, and 
the blast grew longer and louder. Then Jehovah, the sovereign Law- 
giver, came down upon the mount and called Moses to ascend to the 
top that he might receive his law. 

In this summary of moral law we have the most complete and perfect 
arrangement and specification of human duties which has ever been 
made, and one which will probably never be improved. Its division 
into two distinct parts or tables was not accidental, but a matter of 



Chap. 1.] THE MOEAL LAW. 469 

design, and was made for most important reasons. The first table com- 
prehended the four precepts which enjoin our duty to God, and the sec- 
ond the six which prescribe our duty to men. It is called the moral 
law because the subject of its injunctions is not ceremonial observances 
but moral actions, and to distinguish it from the positive laws, which 
were only of temporary obligation. 

3. The moral precepts of the Old Testament are received into the 
Christian code. — When our Lord, in his Sermon on the Mount, says, 
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am 
not come to destroy, but to fulfill" — that is, to confirm or establish the 
law — the entire scope of his discourse shows that he is speaking exclu- 
sively of the moral precepts of the law, eminently so called, and of the 
moral injunctions of the prophets founded upon them, and to which he 
thus gives an equal authority. 

In like manner St. Paul, after having strenuously maintained the doc- 
trine of justification by faith alone, anticipates an objection by asking, 
" Do we then make void the law through faith ?" and subjoins, " God 
forbid ; yea, we establish the law ;" meaning by this term, as the con- 
text and his argument show, the moral and not the ceremonial law. 

After such declarations it is worse than trifling for any one to con- 
tend that, in order to establish the authority of the moral law of the 
Jews over Christians, it ought to have been formally re-enacted. Indeed, 
the summary of the law and the prophets, which is to love God with all 
our heart, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, is unquestionably 
enjoined, and even re-enacted by the Christian Lawgiver. When our 
Lord was explicitly asked by " one who came unto him and said, Good 
Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life ?" the 
answer shows that the moral law contained in the Decalogue is so in 
force under the Christian dispensation that obedience to it is necessary 
to final salvation. " If thou wilt enter into life keep the command- 
ments." And that he refers directly to the Decalogue is manifest from 
what follows. " He saith unto him, Which ? Jesus said, Thou shalt do 
no murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal," 
etc. Matt, xix, 17—19. Here we have all the force of a formal re-enact- 
ment of the Decalogue, a part of it being evidently put for the 
whole. 

Nor would it be difficult to produce passages from the discourses of 
Christ and the writings of the apostles, which enjoin all the precepts of 
this law separately by their authority, as indispensable parts of Chris- 
tian duty, and that, too, under their original sanctions of life and death. 
So, then, the two circumstances which form the true character of law in 
its highest sense, Divine authority and penal sanctions, are found 
as truly in the New Testament as in the Old. It will not, for instance, 
be denied that the New Testament enjoins the worship of one God 
alone ; that it prohibits idolatry ; that it forbids false and profane swear- 



470 THE MORAL LAW. [Book V. 

ing ; that St. Paul uses the very words of the fifth commandment pre- 
ceptively when he says, (Ephesians vi, 2,) " Honor thy father and mother, 
which is the first commandment with promise ;" or that murder, adul- 
tery, theft, false witness, and covetousness are prohibited under pain of 
exclusion from the kingdom of God. 

Thus, then, we have the whole Decalogue brought into the Christian 
code of morals by a distinct injunction of its separate precepts, and by 
their recognition as of permanent and unchangeable obligation ; the 
fourth commandment only being so far excepted that its injunction is 
not so expressly marked. This, however, is no exception in fact ; for, 
1. Its original place in the two tables sufficiently distinguishes it from 
all positive, ceremonial, and typical precepts, and gives it a moral char- 
acter in respect to its ends / which are, first, mercy to servants and cat- 
tle, and secondly, the undisturbed worship of God. 2. It is necessarily 
included in that "law" which our Lord declares he came "not to 
destroy," or abrogate; in that "law" which St. Paul declares to be 
established by faith ; and, 3. It was recognized in the practice of the 
apostles, who did not cease to keep holy one day in seven, but gave " the 
Lord's day" that eminence and sanctity in the Christian Church, which 
the seventh day had in the Jewish, by consecrating it to holy uses. 

4. The New Testament contains a fuller revelation of moral law 
than the Old. — It is important to remark, that though the moral laws 
of the Mosaic dispensation pass into the Christian code, yet they stand 
there in other and higher circumstances. In particular, 

(1 .) They are more expressly extended to the heart, as by our Lord 
in his Sermon on the Mount ; who teaches us, that the thought and 
inward purpose of any offense is a violation of the law which prohibits 
its external and visible commission. 

(2.) The principles on which they are founded are carried out in the 
New Testament into a greater variety of duties, which, by embracing 
more perfectly the social and civil relations of life, are of a more universal 
character; and there is an enlarged injunction of positive and particular 
virtues, especially of such as belong to the Christian temper. 

(3.) All overt acts are inseparably connected with those correspond- 
ing principles in the heart which are essential to acceptable obedience ; 
which principles suppose the regeneration of the soul by the Holy Spirit. 
This moral renovation is, therefore, held out as necessary to our salva- 
tion, and promised through Christ. 

(4.) The precepts of the Gospel are connected with peculiar promises 
of Divine assistance ; are illustrated in the perfect example of our Lord ; 
and are enforced by sanctions derived from the clearer revelation of a 
future state, and the more explicit promises of eternal life, and threaten- 
ings of eternal punishment. 

It follows, therefore, that the Gospel contains the most complete and 
perfect revelation of moral law that has ever been given to man. It 



Chap. 2.] KEPENTANCE. 471 

contains a law which is of universal obligation, the law which was given 
to Adam in paradise, and from which his subsequent apostasy could not 
release him. This law has no relation, therefore, to times and places, or 
to one age or nation more than another ; but being founded in the rela- 
tions of men to their Creator and to one another, it retains its authority 
under all dispensations. 

The great principle involved in all acceptable obedience to moral law 
is love — love to God and love to man. When the lawyer inquired, 
" Master, which is the great commandment of the law ? Jesus said 
unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great 
commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and 
the prophets." Matt, xxii, 36-40. So also St. Paul testifies, that " love 
is the fulfilling of the law." Rom. xiii, 10. It is on this grand principle 
of universal love that all moral law is founded ; and its particular pre- 
cepts only point out the various ways in which this love is to be mani- 
fested. 

To the revealed will of God we may now turn for all necessary inform- 
ation on the interesting subject of Christian morality. But as the 
Gospel is a message of mercy to a sinfm and rebellious race, and as it 
requires of all men, as indispensable conditions of their salvation, 
u repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," it 
seems both proper and necessary that we should in the first place 
direct our attention to a consideration of these important evangelical 
requirements. 



CHAPTER II. 

KEPENTANCE. 



Repentance is a doctrine which presupposes sin. Hence our Lord 
says, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." 
Mark ii, 17. But as all men are sinners, and as all who continue in a 
state of impenitence must perish forever, the doctrine of repentance is 
one in which every man is deeply interested. Let us, therefore, proceed 
to inquire into the nature, the necessity, and the means of evangelical 
repentance. 

I. Its nature. 

Mr. Watson, in his Biblical Dictionary, defines repentance to be " a 
godly sorrow wrought in the heart of a sinful person by the word and 



472 kepentance. [Book V. 

Spirit of God, whereby, from a sense of his sin, as offensive to God, and 
defiling and endangering to his own soul, and from an apprehension of 
the mercy of God in Christ, he, with grief and hatred of all his known 
sins, turns from them to God as his Saviour and Lord." 

There are two distinct words in the Greek Testament which, in our 
authorized version, are rendered " repent." These are \LEra\hiXo\iai and 
lieravoeco. The former, metamelomai, sometimes signifies merely to 
change the mind or purpose, as in Matthew xxi, 29 : • " He answered and 
said, I will not ; but afterward he repented (jiera[ieX7jdeic) and went." 
At other times it means to change the mind from a painful motive, to 
feel sorrow or remorse, as in Matthew xxvii, 3 : " Then Judas, when he 
saw that he was condemned, repented himself, (fieraiJLeXTjdeig,) and 
brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the priests and elders." The 
latter term, metanoeo, usually signifies to change the mind and reform 
the life, from feelings of sorrow and remorse. Thus, " Repent ye ; 
(jieravoeirs ;) for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt, iii, 2. "If 
thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him ; and if he repent, 
(lieravoTjor],) forgive him." Luke xvii, 3. 

Here it may be observed that though these two words are not exactly 
synonymous, yet they have no opposition of meaning. The only differ- 
ence is that one implies more than the other. Metanoeo implies all that 
is meant by metamelomai, together with reformation of life. The 
repentance of Judas, spoken of in Matthew xxvii, 3, is expressed by the 
verb metamelomai / but the expression affords no evidence that his 
repentance went any further than mere contrition or remorse. But in 
general, when the Scriptures speak of that repentance which is con- 
nected with salvation, they employ metanoeo, or some word derived 
from it. Hence we conclude that the repentance which the Gospel 
requires consists mainly in contrition and reformation. 

As it regards the nature of repentance, it may be considered both 
as the gift of God and as the duty of man. That repentance is the 
gift of God is plainly taught in the Scriptures. One or two pas- 
sages will establish this point. "Then hath God also to the Gentiles 
(/ranted repentance unto life." Acts xi, 18. Again: "Him hath God 
exalted to be a Prince, and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel." 
Acts v, 31. 

It is evident, moreover, from the nature of repentance itself, that it is 
the gift of God. One of its essential elements, as we have seen both 
from the above definition and from the etymology of the word, is a deep 
and heart-felt sorrow for sin. But this we cannot produce in ourselves, 
as might easily be shown. Nothing short of Divine agency can produce 
that godly sorrow which " worketh repentance unto life ;" and, therefore, 
repentance is everywhere regarded by evangelical Christians as being, 
in this respect, eminently the work of the Holy Spirit. We must not 
suppose, however, that because repentance is the gift of God we have 



Chap. 2.] REPENTANCE. 473 

nothing to do in the matter. This would be to contradict the plainest 
declarations of inspiration, for God commands " all men everywhere to 
repent." Repentance, then, is both the gift of God and the duty of 
man ; and is, therefore, very properly regarded as consisting in contrition 
of spirit and reformation of life. 

1. Repentance consists in contrition, or a sincere sorrow for sin. — A 
child who disobeys a kind father usually feels, after the fear of punish- 
ment is over, sincere regret on account? of his disobedience. Let a man 
be convinced that he has done an injury to a friend, and though the fact^ 
should be unknown to all but himself, he will lament in secret his unwor- 
thy conduct. In like manner a penitent sinner feels regret and sorrow 
because he has offended God and injured his fellow-men. Of this con- 
trition or godly sorrow it may be asserted, 

(1.) That it always presupposes conviction. It has been very gener- 
ally taught by theologians that conviction of sin constitutes a part of 
repentance; but this notion, we think, is not well founded. That it 
must necessarily precede repentance, and is therefore indispensable to its 
existence, we readily admit ; but that it constitutes an essential part of 
repentance is what we cannot allow. That conviction cannot be a part 
of repentance will appear evident when we consider that the Scriptures 
represent it as a common and universal benefit bestowed on mankind 
through the agency of the Holy Spirit. " He will reprove (convict or con- 
vince) the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." John 
xvi, 8. The enlightening and convicting grace of God leaves all men 
without excuse for their sin ; but it does not imply repentance in any 
proper sense of the term. Our Lord said of the wicked Jews, " If I had 
not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin ; but now they 
have no cloak for their sin." John xv, 22. They were instructed, and 
convicted of sin, but they were still impenitent. 

(2.) That contrition implies a clear discovery of the great evil of sin. 
" Fools make a mock at sin," but to those who are truly of a contrite 
spirit it appears to be a great and terrible evil, fraught with consequences 
of the most dreadful nature. They see that sin is an injury done to 
God ; that every transgression of his holy law is an open and causeless 
affront to his infinite authority. Nor will they fail to recollect that this 
exalted being is their own supreme benefactor, and that every blessing 
which they receive comes "down from the Father of lights." With this 
consideration in view they will be deeply pained by a sense of their 
ingratitude. They see that sin is the cause, either directly or indirectly, 
of all the sufferings that exist throughout the world ; that it entails on 
human life a thousand ills, and plunges the soul into eternal ruin. They 
see, too, the injury which sin has done to themselves; that it has 
degraded them beneath the proper level of rational beings ; that it has 
occupied their noble faculties only in such pursuits as are unworthy and 
mischievous ; that it has rendered them justly loathsome in the sight of 



474 repentance. [Book V. 

God, and contemptible in the eyes of all his holy creatures ; and that it 
exposes them to eternal perdition. 

(3.) That contrition for sin will prompt the subjects of it tofree con- 
fession. This is the first, the proper, and the natural language of true 
penitence. David said, u I acknowledge my transgression ; and my sin 
is ever before me." Psa. li, 3. " For innumerable evils have compassed 
me about ; mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not 
able to look up : they are more than the hairs of my head, therefore my 
£eart faileth me." Psa. xl, 12. So also the publican "smote upon his 
breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." Luke xviii, 13. Thus 
the contrite heart, in the clear view of its sinful condition, overflows 
with penitential sorrow ; and from the abundance of the heart the mouth 
is compelled to speak. 

2. Repentance includes reformation. — Without this there can be no 
repentance to salvation. "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the 
unrighteous man his thoughts ; and let him return unto the Lord, and 
he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly 
pardon." Isa. lv, 7. " Thus saith the Lord God, Pepent, and turn your- 
selves from all your idols ; and turn away your faces from all your abom- 
inations." Ezek. xiv, 6. 

This doctrine is also strongly inculcated in the New Testament. John 
the Baptist required those who came to his baptism to "bring forth 
fruits meet for repentance ;" and our Lord said, " If any man will come 
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." 
Matt, xvi, 24. So also St. Paul tells us that he " showed first unto them 
of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, 
and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and 
do works meet for repentance." Acts xxvi, 20. 

It is worthy of remark that true contrition naturally leads to refor- 
mation of life. This may be seen in the words of the apostle : " For 
godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of." 
2 Cor. vii, 10. It is* asserted by some that "godly sorrow" is no part 
of repentance, because it is here said to work repentance. Hence it is 
concluded that as repentance cannot be produced by itself, so " godly 
sorrow " must be something different from repentance, which it is said 
to work or produce. We readily admit that a thing cannot be at the 
same time and in the same sense both effect and cause; and, conse- 
quently, in this acceptation repentance cannot be the cause of itself. 
But one part of repentance may be the cause of another ; and this, we 
believe, is the obvious meaning of the passage in question. Contrition 
or " godly sorrow," the first part of repentance, works reformation of life, 
the second part of repentance. Though " godly sorrow " is repentance 
begun, yet no repentance is " repentance to salvation " until it extends to 
a thorough reformation of heart and life. It is, therefore, asserted by 
the apostle that " godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation." But, 



Chap. 2.] REPENTANCE. 475 

3. The question is sometimes asked, What is the order of repentance 
in its connection with faith and regeneration ? — The Calvinistic view 
on this subject is, that both faith and repentance follow regeneration, 
and flow from it. Their theory is clearly expressed by Mr. Buck, in his 
Theological Dictionary, thus: "1. Regeneration is the work of God 
enlightening the mind and changing the heart, and in order of time pre- 
cedes faith. 2. Faith is the consequence of regeneration, and implies 
the perception of an object. It discerns the evil of sin, the holiness of 
God, gives credence to the testimony of God in his word, and seems to 
precede repentance, since we cannot repent of that of which we have no 
clear perception or no concern about. 3. Repentance is an after thought, 
or sorrowing for sin, the evil nature of which faith perceives, and which 
immediately follows faith. Conversion is a turning from sin, which faith 
sees and repentance sorrows for, and seems to follow and to be the end 
of all the rest." Thus the order of these graces, in point of time, is 
supposed to be, 1. Regeneration; 2. Faith; 3. Repentance; and, 4. Con- 
version. 

Arminian divines hold a different order on this subject. They hold 
that repentance precedes both justifying faith and regeneration, and that 
the order of these graces, in point of time, is this: 1. Repentance; 
2. Faith ; 3. Regeneration. Let us then look at this subject in the light 
of Scripture. 

We do not deny that repentance is preceded by the influences of the 
Holy Spirit, and by some degree of faith. Such is the depravity of our 
nature that the soul must first be visited by the enlightening and con- 
victing grace of God, and be led to exercise a degree of faith in Divine 
truth before it can take a single step in the way of evangelical repent- 
ance. " For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he 
is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb. xi, 6. Nor do 
we deny that repentance may sometimes follow justifying faith and 
regeneration. It is freely admitted that true believers may, in some 
sense and to some extent, be the subjects of repentance. Such they will 
be as long as there are remains of sin in the soul, and such they may 
be even as long as the soul remains in the body; for those who are 
cleansed "from all unrighteousness" may very properly continue to 
exercise a sorrowful remembrance of past offenses, which is one part of 
repentance. But to show that evangelical repentance, in the common 
acceptation of the term, precedes justifying faith and regeneration, we 
may notice, 

(1.) The order in which these graces are spoken of by the inspired 
writers. '■'•Repent ye, and believe the Gospel." Mark i, 15. " Him hath 
God exalted with his right hand, to be a prince and a Saviour, for to 
give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins ." Acts v, 31. " Testi- 
fying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, 
and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts xx, 21. In these, and 



476 repentance. [Book V. 

many other passages, repentance is placed first in order ; and though 
we would not rest our argument on this fact alone, yet if it were always 
preceded by faith and regeneration, it would be difficult to account for 
the general observance of this order in the Scriptures. But this ques- 
tion is set at rest, 

(2.) By those Scriptures which mark the actual process of the work 
of saving grace. Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" Acts ii, 38. These persons could 
not have been regenerated believers, for if so their sins must have been 
forgiven ; but they were commanded to " repent " and to u be bap- 
tized " in order to " remission." It is, therefore, clear, that in their 
case repentance preceded remission. But as justifying faith, remission, 
and regeneration are always united, their repentance must have pre- 
ceded both faith and regeneration. Again, "Repent ye, therefore, and 
be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." Acts iii, 19. Here 
repentance, instead of being " an after-thought," following regenera- 
tion and faith, is made a condition of pardon ; and, consequently, it 
must precede regeneration. We have only to add, 

(3.) That while the Calvinistic theory is unsupported by Scripture, it 
is objectionable on other grounds. If men cannot repent until they are 
regenerated, and if regeneration is a work in which they are altogether 
passive, as Calvinists teach, then it will follow, 1. That God commands 
all men everywhere to do what he knows they cannot do, that is, " to 
repent," — not after they are regenerated, but now — at this moment. 
2. That the finally impenitent, may urge a strong plea in extenuation 
of their impenitence. They may say, " True, we never repented, but 
we are not to blame. Repentance could not precede regeneration, and 
of that work we were never made the subjects. Consequently, there 
never was a time when we could repent." Repentance, then, must be 
understood to precede both justifying faith and regeneration. 

II. The necessity or Repentance. 

That repentance is necessary, in order to the obtainment of the Divine 
favor and of everlasting life, is proved, 

1. From the word of God. — This is clearly taught, 1. In the Scrip- 
tures of the Old Testament. " Repent, and turn yourselves from all 
your transgressions ; so iniquity shall not be your ruin." Ezek. xviii, 30. 
2. By John the Baptist. "In those days came John the Baptist, 
preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye, for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt, iii, 1, 2. 3. By Jesus Christ. 
" From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent, for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt, iv, 17. "Except ye repent, ye 
shall all likewise perish." Luke xiii, 3. 4. By the apostles. "And they 
went out, and preached that men should repent." Mark vi, 12. " Repent 
ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." 



Chap. 2.] REPENTANCE. 477 

Acts iii, 19. " And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now 
coramandeth all men everywhere to repent." Acts xvii, 30. But the 
necessity of repentance may be argued, 

2. From the nature of true religion. — The religion of the Bible 
requires the exercise of meekness, humility, faith, hope, and charity ; 
but these can have no place in the experience of impenitent sinners. 
They are characterized as " hateful and hating one another ;" and as 
being under the control of " the carnal mind," which " is enmity against 
God." True repentance is therefore necessary, in order that men may 
be qualified to discharge the duties of religion ; but it is equally neces- 
sary in order to its enjoyments, whether in the present or the future 
life. For the spiritual and holy joys of Christianity impenitent sinners 
have no desire. As they " are in the flesh," they " live after the flesh," 
" fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind." Nor could they, 
as impenitent sinners, realize enjoyment even in the bliss of heaven 
itself; for their moral condition would be incongenial to the joys and 
employments of that holy place. Hence, without repentance there can 
be no " peace with God " on earth ; no " crown of glory " in heaven. 

III. The means of Repentance. 

"In contemplating this subject, we would here endeavor to guard 
against presumption on the one hand and despair on the other. By the 
former we may be led to look upon repentance as a work of our own, 
that we may fully accomplish by the unassisted exercise of our own 
powers ; and thus we may be led to despise the proffered grace of the 
Gospel, and by scornfully rejecting the aid of heaven, be left to perish 
in our sins. By the latter we may be led to look upon repentance as a 
work of God alone, in reference to which the efforts of man are perfectly 
useless ; and thus we may be led to repose our consciences upon the 
downy pillow of careless indifference, and yield ourselves up to the 
seducing slumbers of sin, till the door of repentance shall be closed 
against us forever." 

" To suppose that the carnal mind can turn itself to God, and by its 
own innate, underived energy, work out ' repentance unto salvation,' is 
to set aside the doctrine of human depravity, and contradict those Scrip- 
tures which refer to God as the author of repentance. To suppose that 
man can have no agency in the work of repentance, is to deny his 
responsibility for his actions, and discard those Scriptures which call 
upon c all men everywhere to repent.' It is true, God is the author of 
evangelical repentance ; but he confers that blessing according to a cer- 
tain plan, and such as use the prescribed means have the promise that 
they shall attain the proposed end."* What, then, are the means of 
repentance ? We answer, 

1. Serious consideration. — The impenitent multitude, immersed in 
worldly pursuits, and allured by the imposing charms of pleasure, wealth, 
* Ralston 's Elements, pp. 272, 213. 



478 REPENTANCE. [Book V. 

and honor, seldom take time to inquire whence they came, what they 
are, or whither "bound. How touching is the lamentation of Moses 
over the thoughtlessness of an ungodly race ! " O that they were wise, 
that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end !" 
Deut. xxxii, 29. • And how solemn is the accusation which God himself 
urges against his forgetful and backsliding people : " The ox knoweth 
his owner, and the ass his master's crib ; but Israel doth not know, my 
people doth not consider" Isa. i, 3. The want of consideration has 
been in every age, and still is, a fruitful cause of impenitence and final 
ruin. Men " perish for lack of knowledge," and they lack knowledge 
because they " do not consider." If they could be induced to pause in 
their headlong rush to destruction, and to consider the claims which the 
religion of Christ has upon them, their condition would at once become 
hopeful; for consideration is the first step toward evangelical repent- 
ance. 

2. Self-examination. — There is, perhaps, no work in which sinners 
are more unwilling to engage than that of self-examination ; and yet it 
is a work of great importance as a means of repentance. We cannot 
repent of sin, until we know that we are sinners ; and we cannot fully 
understand the nature and extent of our sinfulness, until we examine 
ourselves in the light of God's law. As a man must know that he is 
diseased before he will call in a physician, so sinners must see and feel 
their moral disease and helplessness before they will cry, " Lord, save 
us ; we perish." It is possible for us to suppose, in the absence of self- 
examination, that we are "rich, and increased with goods, and have 
need of nothing ;" while at the same time we are. " wretched, and miser- 
able, and poor, and blind, and naked." St. Paul says, "I was alive 
without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived 
and I died." Rom. vii, 9. The holy and spiritual law of God convinced 
him that he was " carnal, sold under sin," and led him to exclaim, in the 
bitterness of penitential sorrow, " O wretched man that I am! who shall 
deliver me from the body of this death ?" 

3. Meditation on the Divine goodness. — The Gospel employs every 
argument that is calculated to enlist our attention and engage our affec- 
tions. It addresses our hopes and our fears, our reason and our con- 
science, and often appeals to our gratitude. " The goodness of God," 
says St. Paul, "leadeth thee to repentance." Rom. ii, 4. If earthly 
parents have a just claim upon our gratitude, how much stronger are the 
claims of our Father in heaven ! " We read his mercy in all his works. 
It is written upon every leaf, and wafted upon every breeze. It glows 
in every star, and sparkles in every brook. But, above all, in the 
unspeakable gift of Christ, in his sufferings and death for our sins, we 
behold, beyond the power of language to tell, the love of God to us. A 
consideration of this glorious theme should lead us to repentance. Hard, 
indeed, must be the heart, and fiend-like the soul, that can contemplate 



Chap. 3.] faith. 479 

such a debt of love, and feel no pang in offending against such good- 
ness." Such meditations should lead the soul to God in penitential 
gratitude. 

4. Prayer for Divine aid. — As human efforts, without the blessing 
of God, are unavailing in the common pursuits of life ; so, also, we can- 
not " cease to do evil," and " learn to do well," without the aid of the 
Holy Spirit. But in regard to this we have most encouraging prom- 
ises. " If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your 
children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy 
Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke xi, 13. And again, our Lord 
says, " Ask, and it shall be given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, 
and it shall be opened unto you." Matt, vii, 1. We have, therefore, a 
gracious right to " come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may 
obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Heb. iv, 16. 



CHAPTER m. 

FAITH. 

To " believe on the Lord Jesus Christ " is the grand precept of the Gos- 
pel. It is a duty inculcated with peculiar earnestness by the inspired 
writers ; it is bound upon us by the strongest obligations ; it is connected 
with the most solid and extensive advantages ; and its necessity is uni- 
versal, perpetual, and indispensable. Faith is, therefore, a subject in the 
discussion of which all men should feel a lively interest. We propose, 
then, 1. To offer some remarks on the nature of faith in general; and, 
2. To consider more particularly the properties of that faith which is 
necessary to salvation. 

I. We will offer some remarks on the nature of faith in gen- 
eral. 

The Greek word which is rendered faith in the New Testament is 
marie, from the verb nei-do), which means to persuade. Faith, therefore, 
according to the etymology of the word, is the persuasion of the truth 
of a proposition ; or, in other words, faith is the assent of the mind to 
the truth of a proposition on the ground of evidence. 

By evidence we mean whatever is a ground or cause of belief. There 
are various kinds of evidence by which human knowledge is gained and 
propositions are established. We have the evidence of se?ise, of reason, 
of consciousness, and of testimony. It is the evidence of testimony 
alone which produces faith in its strictest acceptation; and faith is 
therefore more pure and genuine, in proportion as the truth believed 



480 faith. [Book V. 

possesses less credibility in itself, and rests solely upon the veracity of 
the testifier. It was this fact that so eminently distinguished the faith 
of Abraham. " He staggered not at the promise of God through unbe- 
lief ; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God." Rom. iv, 20. But 
we may proceed to remark, 

1. That faith implies a previous knowledge of that which is made the 
subject of belief. — Hence knowledge has been regarded as an antecedent 
act of faith ; for in order that we might believe, it is necessary that we 
should have a previous knowledge of what we are to believe. There 
is, therefore, great propriety in the question of the man who had been 
healed of his native blindness, when our Lord said to him, " Dost thou 
believe on the Son of God ? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, 
that I might believe on him?" John ix, 35, 36. 

A proposition to be believed may be either directly expressed or only 
implied. Of the former we have an example in John iv, 50, when our 
Lord said to the nobleman of Capernaum, " Thy son liveth," and of the 
latter in John ix, 7 : " Go, wash in the pool of Siloam." Jesus did not 
tell the blind man that by washing in this pool he should receive sight, 
but this proposition was plainly implied. " He went his way therefore, 
and washed, and came seeing." 

2. Faith implies evidence. — ~No man can believe a proposition without 
evidence, either real or supposed ; nor can any one withhold his assent 
to a proposition which, according to his judgment, is sustained by a 
sufficient amount of evidence. Belief, therefore, is the natural and nec- 
essary result of evidence whenever such evidence is apprehended by the 
mind ; for it is impossible that any one should believe a proposition to 
be both true and false at the same time. 

But to this it may be objected, that if a man cannot believe without 
evidence, and if belief is the natural and necessary result of evidence, 
then it will follow either that no man ever believed a falsehood, or that 
falsehood is sometimes supported by evidence ; neither of which can be 
allowed. To this we reply : It is evident that men often believe that 
which is false ; and it is equally evident that falsehood cannot be sup- 
ported by real evidence, otherwise the distinction between truth and 
error would be destroyed. But these facts are in perfect harmony with 
the position which we have assumed. Thus, a man's judgment, through 
some improper bias, may decide in favor of a proposition for which there 
is really no evidence ; but then we must make a distinction between 
what is really evidence and what is supposed to be evidence. A man 
may take that for evidence which is really no evidence at all, and by 
this means be led into the belief of error. On the other hand a propo- 
sition may be true, and it may be susceptible of the clearest proof; but 
from some mismanagement of the mind its truth may not be appre- 
hended. Hence it follows that men are responsible for what they believe 
as well as for what they do. 



Chap. 3.] faith. 481 

3. Faith always operates according to the fact or proposition believed. 
— If the thing proposed appears to be of importance it will, when 
believed, excite emotion, and perhaps prompt to action ; which action 
is the fruit and external evidence of faith. When God revealed to Xoah 
his determination to destroy mankind by water, and commanded him to 
prepare an ark as the means of preserving himself and his family, he 
was " moved with fear :" here was the emotion which his faith produced ; 
and he "prepared an ark to the saving of his house:" here was the action 
consequent on his faith. When Jonah proclaimed, "Yet forty days, 
and Nineveh shall be overthrown, the people of Nineveh believed God, 
and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them 
even to the least of them." Jonah iii, 4, 5. When the multitude on the 
day of Pentecost believed the preaching of Peter they were " pricked 
in their heart." This was the emotion which accompanied their faith, 
and they cried out, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" Acts ii, 37. 
Thus they expressed their emotion in a manner which gave evidence of 
their faith. 

4. Faith may exist in different degrees. — It may not only be more or 
less extensive in regard to the truths embraced, but it may vary also in 
its degree of strength. Our Saviour addresses his disciples, saying, " O 
ye of little faith." Matt, vi, 30. So St. Paul speaks (Romans xiv, l) of 
"him that is weak in the faith." On the other hand our Lord says, in 
regard to the centurion's faith, " I have not found so great faith, no, not 
in Israel." Matt, viii, 10. Again, addressing the woman of Canaan, he 
says, " O woman, great is thy faith." Matt, xv, 28. Here faith is 
spoken of as being in some cases little or icealc, and in others great ; 
hence it must exist in different degrees. 

The same doctrine is taught in all those Scriptures which speak of 
faith as being progressive. The disciples are exhorted to " have faith 
as a grain of mustard-seed," which clearly implies its growth and 
expansion. Accordingly, we find the disciples praying, " Lord, increase 
our faith." Luke xvii, 5. St. Paul, when speaking of the Gospel, says, 
" Therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith." 
Rom. i, 17. This can only mean, that faith advances from one degree 
to another. Again, he says to his brethren, " Your faith groweth 
exceedingly." 2 Thess. i, 3. It follows, therefore, that there may be 
degrees in true faith. 

II. We will coxsldee the peopeeties of that faith which is 

NECESSAET TO SALVATIOX. 

Though much is said in the sacred Scriptures in regard to faith, there 
is only one passage in which it is particularly denned. This is Hebrews 
xi, 1 : " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for ; the evidence 
of things not seen." As this is the only inspired definition of saving 
faith, it will be proper to examine with suitable attention the terms in 
which it is expressed. 

31 



482 faith. [Book V. 

The word imooraotg, which is rendered substance, means literally some- 
thing placed under, a basis or foundation. But in its metaphorical 
application it means a certain persuasion, an assured expectation, a con- 
fident anticipation. We think that the last sense, confident anticipation, 
is the true import of the word in the passage before us, as the apostle 
connects it with " things hoped for." So also, in Hebrews iii, 14, the 
same original word is rendered confidence in our translation. 

The term eXey%og, rendered evidence, means primarily whatever 
serves to convince or confute; an argument, proof, or demonstration. 
But when it is used by metonymy it means refutation or conviction ; 
firm persuasion. The last we take as the true import of the word in 
the present case. The apostle's definition, therefore, may be stated 
thus : Faith is the confident anticipation of things hoped for, the firm 
persuasion of things invisible. But we will now consider, more directly, 
the properties of saving faith. 

1. All saving faith is grounded upon revecded truth. — The apostle 
tells us that the Gospel is " the power of God unto salvation to every one 
that believeth" Romans i, 16 ; and that men are chosen to eternal life 
" through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Thess. 
ii, 13. He accordingly inquires, " How then shall they call on him in 
whom they have not believed ? and how shall they believe in him of 
whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a 
preacher ? and how shall they preach except they be sent ? So then 
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" Rom. 
x, 14, 17. That revealed truth is the ground of saving faith will further 
appear from the following passages. Our Saviour says, " Neither pray 
I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through 
their word." John xvii, 20. " And many other signs truly did Jesus in 
the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But 
these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God ; and that believing ye might have life through his name." 
John xx, 30, 31.* 

It is worthy of remark, that while the Scriptures propose to us truths 
to be believed, they also afford the evidence on which a rational faith 
may be founded. This will appear from the following passages : " If I 
do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though 
you believe not me, believe the works ; that ye may know and believe, 
that the Father is in me, and I in him." John x, 37, 38^ " How shall 
we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the first began to 
be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard 
him ; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and 
with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own 
will ?" Heb. ii, 3, 4. Again : " For we have not followed cunningly 
devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For 



Chap. 3.] FAITH. 483 

he received from God the Father honor and glory/ when there canle 
such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, 
in whom I am well pleased." 2 Peter i, 16, 17. Thus we see that the 
faith which the Scriptures require is not a blind assent of the mind 
without any rational foundation. It is a well-grounded and reasonable 
confidence, based upon good and sufficient evidence. 

2. Saving faith is something more than a mere intellectual assent to 
Gospel truth. — It is admitted that this intellectual assent is included in 
saving or justifying faith, and that without it there can be no salvation ; 
but that it does, in itself, necessarily produce salvation, is what we deny. 
So far is this from being the fact, that moral creatures may possess a 
high degree of intellectual assent to Divine truth, while they are 
involved in sin and far from God. Thus St. James, in speaking of a 
mere intellectual and inoperative faith, says, " The devils also believe 
and tremble." James ii, 19. In accordance with this is the language of 
one of those wicked spirits, when our Lord was about to cast him out : 
" I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." Mark i, 24. We 
see, therefore, that devils possess faith ; and if the Gospel required 
nothing more than an intellectual assent to Divine truth, it would only 
require of men the faith of devils. But as no one can suppose that 
justifying faith is the same as that which is possessed by devils, the 
inference is obvious, that it must be something more than the bare 
assent of the understanding. 

It is evident, moreover, that men may be convinced of the Messiah- 
ship of Christ and the truth of revealed religion without being the sub- 
jects of saving grace. Of Simon Magus it is said that he " believed" 
and " was baptized ;" that is, he " believed Philip preaching the things 
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ." But 
Peter said to him immediately afterward, " Thou hast neither part nor 
lot in this matter ; for thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond 
of iniquity."* St. Paul, in his defense before Agrippa, said, " King 
Agrippa, believest thou the prophets ? I know that thou believest." 
Acts xxvi, 27. But did he possess saving faith ? Certainly he did not. 
It follows, therefore, that saving faith is something more than an intel- 
lectual assent to the truth. 

3. Saving faith implies a full and hearty consent of the will to the 
Gospel plan of salvation. — We are everywhere addressed in the word 
of God as voluntary agents. " If ye be willing and obedient," saith the 
Lord, " ye shall eat the good of the land." And " if any man icill come 
after me," said Christ, "let him deny himself, and take up his cross 
and follow me." Matt, xvi, 24. When the Ethiopian eunuch desired to 
be baptized, " Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou 
mayest." Acts viii, 37. So St. Paul testifies, that " with the heart man 
believeth unto righteousness." Rom. x, 10. It follows, therefore, that 

* See Acts viii, 12-23. 



484 faith. [Book V. 

ti*ue and saving faith implies an enlistment of the whole heart — the will 
and affections — in the cause of God. 

It is said of a certain young man who came to our Lord, saying, 
" Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal 
life?" that "he went away sorrowful." But why? Doubtless, 
because he was not willing to comply with the terms which Christ pro- 
posed.* On another occasion " many of his disciples went back, and 
walked no more with him," because they were offended at his doc- 
trines.f We are moreover informed, that " among the chief rulers 
many believed on him ; but because of the Pharisees they did not con- 
fess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue ; for they loved 
the praise of men more than the praise of God." John xii, 42, 43. 
These rulers were believers in Christ, but they were not willing to 
make the sacrifices which the religion of Christ requires ; consequently, 
they did not possess justifying or saving faith. To such our Lord refers 
when he says, " Whosoever, therefore, shall be ashamed of me and of 
my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the 
Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father 
with the holy angels." Mark viii, 38. Thus it is evident that saving 
faith requires a voluntary and full surrender of ourselves to God. 
But, 

4. It implies also unshaken trust in God. — This refers to whatever 
is revealed or asserted on Divine authority, whether it relates to the 
past, the present, or the future. It is very evident, from the testimony 
of Scripture, that the faith which God requires of men always compre- 
hends trust or reliance, as well as persuasion and consent. The faith 
by which " the elders obtained a good report " was clearly of this char- 
acter, uniting a noble confidence in the word and promises of God 
with an assent to the truth of his revelations. " Our fathers trusted in 
thee," said David ; " they trusted in thee, and thou didst deliver them." 
Psa. xxii, 4. This is the faith which was exercised by Abraham 
when " he went out, not knowing whither he went ;" when he rested 
in the promise of God, and obtained justification ; and when he 
obeyed the Divine command, in offering up his son Isaac. This 
faith, too, pious Job possessed when he said, " Though he slay me, 
yet will I trust in him." Job xiii, 15. And the psalmist, in character- 
izing a good man, says, "His heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord." 
Psa. cxii, V. 

The same view of this subject is fully established in the New Testa- 
ment. When our Lord said to his disciples, " Have faith in God," he 
did not question their belief in his existence, but exhorted them to con- 
fide or trust in his promises. He therefore adds, "Whosoever shall say 
unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea ; 
and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things 
* See Matt, xix, 16-22. f See John vi, 60, 66. 



Chap. 3.] FAITH. 485 

which he saith shall come to pass ; he shall have whatsoever he saith." 
Mark xi, 22, 23. It was in reference to the centurion's simple trust in 
the power of Christ that our Lord so highly commended him, saying, 
"I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." Matt, viii, 10. In 
all the instances in which persons were miraculously healed by Christ 
their faith was also of this kind. It was belief in his claims, and trust 
in his goodness and power. 

That faith in Christ which is connected with salvation is clearly of 
this nature. He is set forth, both to Jews and Gentiles, as a propitia- 
tion "through faith in his blood," which faith cannot mean a mere 
assent, either to the historical fact that his blood was shed by a violent 
death, or to the doctrine that it possesses an atoning quality. But as 
all expiatory offerings, both among Jews and Gentiles, were trusted in 
as the means of propitiation, so now we are to trust exclusively in the 
blood of Christ as the meritorious cause of our salvation. "In his 
name shall the Gentiles t?*ust." Matt, xii, 21. "In whom ye also trusted, 
after that ye heard the word of truth." Eph. i, 13. " We both labor and 
suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of 
all men, specially of those that believe." 1 Tim. iv, 10. This firm and 
unshaken trust in God is the crowning exercise of saving faith. It is 
by this that the humble penitent throws himself upon the mercy of God, 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, and claims the blessing of pardon. It 
is by this that the Christian wars a good warfare, overcomes the world, 
and obtains everlasting life. 

It must be remembered, however, that the trust which leads to salva- 
tion is not a blind and superstitious trust in the sacrifice of Christ, like 
that of the heathen in their sacrifices ; nor is it the presumptuous trust 
of wicked and impenitent men, who depend on Christ to save them in 
their sins ; but it is such a trust as is exercised according to the author- 
ity and direction of the word of God. To know the Gospel in its lead- 
ing principles, to assent to its truth, and to comply with its injunctions, 
are, therefore, necessary to that more specific act of faith which is 
called trust or reliance; or, in theological language, fiducial assent, of 
which cometh salvation. 



486 loye to god. [Book V. 



CHAPTEE IV. 

LOVE TO GOD. 

Haying discussed the two primary Gospel 'duties, " repentance toward 
God, and. faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," — duties which are prereq- 
uisite to the right performance of every other Gospel requirement — we 
may proceed to consider the great and comprehensive duty of love to 
God. Let us, then, inquire both into its nature and its obligations. 

I. Its nature. 

Supreme love to God is the chief of what have been called our theo- 
pathetic affections. It is the sum and the end of law, and though lost 
by us in Adam, it is restored to us by Christ. When it regards God 
absolutely and in himself as a being of infinite and harmonious perfec- 
tions and moral beauties, it is that movement of the soul toward him 
which is produced by admiration, approval, and delight. When it 
regards him relatively, it rests on the ceaseless emanations of his good- 
ness to us in the continuance of our existence, on the circumstances 
which render this existence felicitous ; and, above all, on that " great 
love wherewith he loved us," manifested in the gift of his Son for 
our redemption, and in saving us by his grace ; or, in the language 
of St. Paul, on "the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness 
toward us through Christ Jesus." Under all these views an unbounded 
gratitude overflows the heart which is influenced by this spiritual affec- 
tion. 

But love to God is more than a sentiment of gratitude. It rejoices 
in all his glorious perfections, and devoutly contemplates them as the 
highest and most interesting subjects of thought. It keeps the idea of 
this supremely beloved object constantly present to the mind, turns to 
it with adoring ardor from the business and distractions of life, and con- 
nects it with every scene of majesty and beauty in nature, and with 
every event of general and particular providence. It brings the soul 
into fellowship with God, real and sensible, because vital. It moulds 
the other affections into conformity with what God himself wills or pro- 
hibits, loves or hates, and produces an unbounded desire to please him 
and to be accepted of him in all things. It is jealous of his honor, 
unwearied in his service, quick to prompt to every necessary sacrifice in 
his cause, and renders all such sacrifices, even when carried to the extent 
of suffering and death, unreluctant and cheerful. It chooses God as the 
chief good of the soul, the enjoyment of which assures its perfect and 
eternal interest and happiness. " Whom have I in heaven but thee ? and 
there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee," is the language of 



Chap. 4.] LOVE TO GOD. 487 

every heart when its love to God is true in principle and supreme in 
degree. 

With the philosopher the love of God may be the mere approval of 
the intellect, or a sentiment which results from the contemplation of 
infinite perfection, manifesting itself in acts of power and goodness. But 
in Scripture it is much more than either, and is produced and maintained 
by a different process. We are there taught that " the carnal mind is 
enmity against God," and is therefore incapable of loving God. Yet 
this " carnal mind " may consist with deep attainments in philosophy 
and with strongly impassioned poetic sentiment. The mere approval 
of the understanding, and the susceptibility of being impressed with feel- 
ings of admiration, awe, and even pleasure, when the character of God 
is manifested in his works, are not the love of God ; since both may be 
found in the " carnal mind," which is " enmity against God." They are 
principles which enter into that love, and without which it cannot exist ; 
but they may exist without this affection itself, and be found in a vicious 
and unchanged nature. 

The love of God is a fruit of the Holy Spirit ; that is, it is implanted 
by him only in the souls of the regenerate ; and, as that which excites 
its exercise is chiefly, and in the first place, a sense of the benefits 
bestowed by the grace of God in our redemption, and a well-grounded 
persuasion of our personal interest in those benefits, it necessarily pre- 
supposes our personal reconciliation to God through faith in the atone- 
ment of Christ, and the attestation of it by the Spirit of adoption. 

Love to God is essential to true obedience; for when the apostle 
declares this love to be " the fulfilling of the law," he declares in effect 
that the law cannot be fulfilled without it ; and that every action which 
has not this for its principle, however virtuous in its appearance, fails to 
meet the claims of the law. But if the will of God is the perfect rule 
of morals ; and if supreme love to God produces prompt, unwearied, 
and delightful subjection to his will, or rather an entire and most free 
choice of it as the rule of all our principles, affections, and actions, the 
importance of this- affection in securing that obedience to the law of 
God in which true morality consists is manifest, and we clearly per- 
ceive the reason why an inspired writer has affirmed that " love is the 
fulfilling of the law." 

But this love to God cannot be felt so long as we are conscious of his 
wrath, and are in dread of his judgments. These feelings are incom- 
patible with each other, and we must be assured of his reconciliation to 
us before we can love him. Thus the very existence of love to God 
implies the doctrines of the atonement, repentance, faith, and the gift 
of the Spirit of adoption to believers ; and unless it be taught in this 
connection, and through this process of experience, it will be exhibited 
only as a beautiful object to which man has no access, or as a fictitious 
and delusive sentimentalism. 



488 love TO GOD. [Book V. 

But that we may have a still clearer view of the nature of that love 
to God which the Scriptures require, we may remark that it implies, 

1. Submission to God. — This springs from a due sense of that relation 
in which we stand to him as creatures. The right of an absolute 
sovereignty over us must, in the reason of the case, exist exclusively in 
Him who made us ; and it is the perception and recognition of this, as 
a practical habit of the mind, which renders outward acts of obedience 
sincere and religious. The will of God is the only rule to man in every- 
thing on which that will has been declared ; and as it lays its injunctions 
upon the heart as well as the life, the rule is equally in force when it 
directs our opinions, our motives, and our affections, as when it enjoins 
or prohibits external acts. We belong to God, however, not only 
because he created us, but also because he redeemed us. " Ye are not 
your own," says the apostle, " for ye are bought with a price ; there- 
fore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 

These ideas of absolute right on the part of God, and of absolute 
obligation to universal obedience on the part of man, are united in the 
profession of St. Paul, " Whose I am, and whom I serve ;" and form 
the grand fundamental principle of godliness both in the Old and New 
Testament ; in each of which the ivill of God is laid down both as the 
highest reason, and the most powerful motive to obedience. The appli- 
cation of this principle, so established by the Scriptures, will show how 
greatly superior is the ground on which Christianity places moral virtue 
to that of any other system. For, 

(1.) The will of God, which is the rule of duty, is authenticated by 
the whole of that stupendous evidence which proves the Scriptures to 
be of Divine authority. 

(2.) This will at once defines and enforces every branch of inward 
and outward purity, rectitude, and benevolence. 

(3.) It annuls by its authority every other rule of conduct contrary 
to itself, whether it arises from custom, or from the example, persuasion, 
or opinions of men. - 

(4.) It is a rule which cannot be lowered to the weak and fallen state 
of human nature; but, connecting itself with a gracious dispensation 
of supernatural help, it directs the morally imbecile to that remedy, 
and holds them guilty of 1^he violation of its claims if that remedy is 
neglected. 

(5.) It does not accommodate itself to the temporal interests or 
safety of men, but requires that interest, honor, liberty, and even life 
itself, should be surrendered, rather than its demands should be vio- 
lated. 

(6.) It admits no exceptions in obedience, but requires it whole and 
entire; so that outward virtue cannot be taken in the place of that 
which has its seat in the heart. It allows no acts to be really virtuous 
but those which spring from a willing and submissive mind, and are 



Chap. 4.] LOVE TO GOD. 489 

done with a distinct recognition of our rightful subjection to God. 
Without such feeling of submission, God cannot be the object of our 
supreme love. 

2. Trust in God. — We have already shown that trust in God is an 
essential element of justifying faith ; and as none but those who are 
justified can really love God, the connection between trust and love is 
at once established. There is, however, a distinction to be made 
between that trust which is exercised by a believing penitent in order 
to justification, and the trust which co-exists with genuine love to God. 
The former necessarily precedes this love, and is the trust of a penitent 
sinner for pardoning mercy, through the merits of the atonement. The 
latter is exercised by those only who are "justified by faith," and is 
the confidence not merely of creatures in a beneficent Creator, nor of 
subjects in a gracious Sovereign, but of children in a reconciled and 
benevolent Father. 

Our trust in God is enjoined in as many respects as he has been 
pleased to give us in his word assurances of help and promises of favor. 
It respects the supply of every want, temporal and eternal ; the wise 
and gracious ordering of all our concerns; our preservation from all 
that can upon the whole be injurious to us, our guidance through life, 
our hope in death, and our eternal felicity in another world. 

To trust in God is a duty, because it is a subject of express command. 
" Trust in the Lord, and do good." Psa. xxxvii, 3. " Trust in the Lord 
with all thine heart." Prov. iii, 5. From our Lord's Sermon on the 
Mount it is clear that one end of his teaching was to deliver men from 
the perplexing anxieties of life by encouraging them to confide in the 
care and bounty of their " heavenly Father." This duty is also enforced 
by the consideration that, since God has given us such demonstrations 
of his kindness, distrust would imply a dishonorable and sinful denial 
of his love and faithfulness. If, therefore, we love God, our trust in 
him will be sincere, universal, and perpetual. But this love implies, 

3. The fear of God. — This element of true godliness is associated 
with love and trust in every part of the holy Scriptures, and is enjoined 
upon us as a leading duty. Let us, then, notice both its nature and its 
practical influence. 

(1.) As to its nature, it consists in that profound reverence for God 
which springs from a just view and sincere love of his character, and 
which leads the subjects of it to hate and shun everything that is sinful, 
and to delight in holy obedience. It is, therefore, to be distinguished 
from that servile passion which consists in painful apprehensions of the 
Divine displeasure, and a just conviction of personal liability to punish- 
ment. Such a fear of God is not designed to be the habit of the mind, 
nor is it included in the phrase, " the fear of the Lord," when that is 
used to express the whole of practical religion, or its leading prin- 
ciples. 



490 LOVE TO GOD. [Book V. 

But though that reverential fear which is implied in love to God 
excludes all servility of spirit, yet it supposes our conditional liability 
to the Divine displeasure. For since the saving benefits of the atone- 
ment are conditional, and since during life we are in a state of trial, 
there is sufficient reason why we ought to be so impressed with our 
spiritual danger as to produce in us that cautionary fear of the holi- 
ness, justice, and power of God which shall deter us from sin, and lead 
us often to view with a restraining and salutary drea# those conse- 
quences of unfaithfulness and disobedience to which we are liable. 
Powerful, therefore, as are the reasons for our firm affiance in the mercy 
and benevolence of God, we are nevertheless not beyond the reach of 
danger. Hence we are exhorted to " fear, lest a promise being left us 
of entering into rest," we should " come short of it ;" and to " pass the 
time of" our " sojourning here in fear." 

(2.) This scriptural view of the fear of God, as combining both rever- 
ence for the Divine Majesty, and a suitable apprehension of our con- 
ditional liability to his displeasure, is of large practical influence. It 
restrains our faith from degenerating into presumption, our love into 
familiarity, and our joy into carelessness. It nurtures humility, watch- 
fulness, and the spirit of prayer. It induces a reverent habit of think- 
ing and speaking of God, and gives solemnity to the exercises of devo- 
tion. It presents sin to us under its true aspect, as dangerous as well 
as corrupting to the soul ; as darkening our prospects in a future life, 
as well as injurious to our peace in the present ; and it gives strength 
and efficacy to that most important practical moral principle, the con- 
stant reference of our inward habits of thought and feeling, and our 
outward actions to the approbation of God. 

II. Our obligations to love God. 

That it is the duty of all men to love God may be argued from the 
excellency of his nature, the tendency of this love to promote our hap- 
piness, and the positive requirements of the holy Scriptures. 

1. From the excellency of the Divine nature. — Amid the darkness 
which involves the movements of the Almighty, we discover qualities 
in his character infinitely lovely. Though he possesses in himself all 
that is necessary to constitute him infinitely happy, yet he is continually 
seeking the welfare of his creatures. Of this fact we have ample evi- 
dence in our own history. Short-sighted as we are, we clearly discover 
in every dispensation of his providence beneficence and kindness. 
Notwithstanding our ingratitude and sins, every manifestation of his 
will brings with it fresh indications of his goodness. Little as we 
understand of the designs of Providence, its long and complicated chain 
of causes and effects, its amazing process of abstracting good from evil, 
and the ultimate objects of its operations, we cannot but exclaim with 
David, "O that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for 
his wonderful works to the children of men !" Psa. cvii, 8. Wonderful, 



Chap. 4.] LOVE TO GOD. 491 

however, as are the exhibitions of Divine goodness in the works of 
creation and providence, they are still greater in the work of redemp- 
tion. The incarnation of the Son of God, his obedience to the Divine 
law in our behalf, and his sufferings and death for our redemption, 
prove in the highest degree the riches of his goodness, and demand our 
warmest gratitude and love. 

2. From the tendency of the love of God to promote our happiness. 
— To have the energies of our nature directed to their proper object, to 
accomplish the high destiny of our moral being, to possess feelings in 
harmony with the principles of eternal excellence, to contemplate with 
rapture and admiration the primary qualities of all beauty, are the 
effects of loving God, and these effects are the elements of all true happi- 
ness. But in connection with these enjoyments we have the pleasure 
of knowing, that while we love God he also loves us ; and surely nothing 
can contribute more to our happiness than a persuasion of this kind. To 
believe that He who holds in his hands the destinies of all intelligent 
creatures is our friend and benefactor, cannot fail, even in the darkest 
periods of human life, to afford hope, to alleviate affliction, and to pro- 
mote real happiness. This, then, is another strong reason why we 
should love God. 

3. From the positive injunctions of Scripture. — The first and great 
commandment is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine 
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Deut. vi, 5. "I 
have," said Moses to the Hebrews, " set before thee this day life and 
good, and death and evil ; in that I command thee this day to love the 
Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and 
his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply ; and 
the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to 
possess it." Deut xxx, 15, 16. It is not necessary, however, to multiply 
quotations in proof of our obligation to love God, for it is well known 
that this is everywhere taught, both in the Old and the New Testament. 

We remark in conclusion, that upon these internal principles of piety — 
love, submission, trust, and filial fear — rests that moral habit or state of 
the mind which is often expressed by the term holiness. Separate from 
these principles, our morality can only consist in visible acts, imperfect 
in themselves because not vital ; and however commended by men, 
abominable to God, who searches the heart. But when our moral acts 
proceed from these sources they are proportioned to the strength and 
purity of the principle which originates them, except as in some cases 
they may be influenced and deteriorated by an uninformed or weak 
judgment. But supreme love to God, entire submission to him, firm 
affiance in h\s covenant engagements, and that fear which abases the 
spirit before him, and departs even from "the appearance of evil," when 
joined with a right understanding of Divine truth, render the man of 
God " perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 



492 THE DUTY OF PRAYER. [Book V. 



CHAPTEE V. 

THE DUTY OE PRAYER. 

Having- considered those internal principles which are essential to true 
piety, we will in the next place direct our attention to some of the 
external duties which we owe to God. The first in order is that of 
prayer, which we will make the subject of the present chapter by con- 
sidering its nature, its obligation, and its utility. 

I. The Nature of Peayer. 

Under this head we may notice, 1. The general character of prayer ; 
and, 2. Its various kinds. 

1. Its general character. — Prayer is the offering of our desires to 
God through the mediation of Jesus Christ, under the influence of the 
Holy Spirit, and with suitable dispositions, for things agreeable to his 
will. 

(1.) Prayer is the act of an indigent creature seeking relief from the 
fountain of mercy. A sense of want excites desire, and desire is the 
very essence of prayer. " One thing have I desired of the Lord," says 
David, "that will I seek after." Psa. xxvii, 4. And again, "My heart 
and my flesh crieth out for the living God." Psa. lxxxiv, 2. "We may 
assume the most humble attitude, employ the most appropriate and 
impressive language, and join in the most scriptural and elevated forms 
of worship, but if we do not properly appreciate the importance of the 
Divine blessings, if we do not " hunger and thirst after righteousness," 
our prayers will be unavailing. " The kingdom of heaven suffereth vio- 
lence, and the violent take it by force." Prayer without desire is like a 
sacrifice without the fire from heaven to consume it. 

(2.) Prayer consists in offering our desires to God. The supposition 
of some, that the worship of God is merely passive, or consists only in 
meditation, is without any foundation in truth. Jacob not only felt his 
need of the blessings which he sought, but even wrestled for them till 
they were bestowed. When the angel said, " Let me go, the day 
breaketh," his reply was, " I will not let thee go except thou bless me." 
Gen. xxxii, 26. So also the language of our Lord is, "Ask, and it shall 
be given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened to 
you." Matt, vii, 7. 

(3.) The only object to whom our prayers should be addressed is 
God. Neither saints, nor angels, nor any created beings are permitted 
to be the objects of religious worship. So long as the first two com- 
mandments remain to be a part of the Decalogue, so long will it be the 



Chap. 5.] THE DUTY OF PRAYER. 493 

duty of men to offer their prayers to God alone. In the system of 
redemption each Person of the adorable Trinity has his appropriate 
office ; and though the Scriptures prove it to be right that we should 
pray directly to the Son or to the Holy Ghost, yet they evidently teach 
the doctrine that our prayers are ordinarily to be addressed to God the 
Father. St. Paul says, " I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ ;" and St. Peter, " Blessed be the God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." 

(4.) Our prayers must be offered to God through the mediation of 
Christ. He himself declares, " I am the way, and the truth, and the 
life : no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John xiv, 6. Again, 
he says to the apostles, " I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you 
should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain ; that 
whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." 
John xv, 16. St. Paul testifies of our Lord that " through him we both 
(Jews and Gentiles) have an access by one Spirit unto the Father ;" * 
and that there is " one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
Jesus." f 

(5.) But to present our prayers acceptably to the Father, through the 
Son, we must offer them under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Though 
we are not authorized to look for those immediate and sensible inspira- 
tions which the prophets, and apostles, and many of the primitive Chris- 
tians possessed, yet we may expect, from the unction of " the Holy One," 
that earnestness, and fervor, and penitence, and trust which are neces- 
sary to acceptable devotion. The Holy Spirit is the great agent in the 
world of grace, and without his influence there can be no spiritual wor- 
ship. Hence he is called " the Spirit of grace and of supplication." 
Zech. xii, 10. And St. Paul says, Rom. viii, 26, "The Spirit also help- 
eth our infirmities ; for we know not what we should pray for as we 
ought ; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings 
which cannot be uttered." 

(6.) But again : our prayers, in order to be acceptable, must be offered 
with suitable dispositions. Every unholy motive and every improper 
disposition must, without reluctance or reserve, be given up. " If I 
regard iniquity in my heart," says David, u the Lord will not hear me." 
Psa. lxvi, 18. And the apostle requires "that men pray everywhere, 
lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." 1 Tim. ii, 8. Our 
prayers should be offered, 1. Without ostentation. "When thou pray- 
est," says our Lord, " thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are ; for they 
love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, 
that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their 
reward." Matt, vi, 5. 2. In the spirit of forgiveness. "If ye forgive 
men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you ; but if 
ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive 
* Eph. ii, 18. f * Tim - "i 5 - 



494 THE DUTY OF PRAYER. [Book V. 

your trespasses." Matt, vi, 14, 15. Therefore, "when ye stand praying, 
forgive, if ye have aught against any ; that your Father also which is in 
heaven may forgive you your trespasses." Mark xi, 25. " Forgive, and 
ye shall be forgiven." Luke vi, ST. 3. In the spirit of humility and 
confession. Of this we have a striking example in the case of the pub- 
lican. He " would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but 
smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell 
you," says our Lord, " this man went down to his house justified rather 
than the other. For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased ; 
and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke xviii, 13, 14. 

4. In the spirit of resignation. That submission which distinguished 
the Son of God in all the changes through which he passed should char- 
acterize his people. In every petition which is offered to God, the lan- 
guage of the heart should be, "not as I will, but as thou wilt." 

5. In faith. "Without this it is impossible to please God. But our 
Lord says, " What things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that 
ye receive them, and ye shall have them." Mark xi, 24. 

(7.) Our prayers must be offered for things agreeable to the will of 
God. As we have forfeited, by wicked works, every title to the bless- 
ings of heaven, we can expect to receive them only on the ground of 
unmerited goodness. It would, therefore, be presumptuous in us to 
ask God for what he has never promised to bestow ; or to ask even 
his promised blessings at a time, or in a degree, which is not in accord- 
ance with his will. In all our addresses to God we should remember 
that sovereignty belongs to him, and that submission is appropriate 
to us. 

But we should be unfeignedly thankful to God that we are not 
straitened in the scope of our petitions. Everything calculated to 
promote our happiness, both in this world and in that which is to come, 
is made a subject of gracious promise, and may, therefore, be an object 
of prayer. " The Lord God is a sun and shield ; the Lord will give 
grace and glory : no good thing will he withhold from them that walk 
uprightly." Psa. lxxxiv, 11. The exhortation of the apostle is, "Be 
careful for nothing ; but in everything by prayer and supplication, with 
thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God." Phil, iv, 6. 

2. The various hinds of prayer. — The general duty of prayer is 
usually distributed into four kinds, ejaculatory, private, social, and pub- 
lic ' each of which is of sufficient importance to require a separate con- 
sideration. 

(1.) Ejactjlatoey prayer. — This term is given to those secret and 
frequent aspirations of the heart to God for general or particular bless- 
ings, by which a just sense of our habitual dependence upon God and 
of our wants and dangers may be expressed while we are employed in 
the common affairs of life. It includes, too, all those short and occa- 
sional effusions of gratitude and silent ascriptions of praise, which the 



Chap. 5.] THE DUTY OF PRAYER. 495 

remembrance of the mercies of God will excite in a devotional spirit 
under the same circumstances. Both, however, presuppose what 
divines call " the spirit of prayer ;" which springs from a sense of our 
dependence upon God, and is a breathing of the desires after intercourse 
of thought and affection with him, accompanied with a reverential and 
encouraging sense of his constant presence with us. 

The cultivation of this spirit is clearly enjoined upon us as a duty by 
St. Paul, who exhorts us to " pray without ceasing," and " in every- 
thing " to " give thanks ;" and also to set our " affection on things 
above," — exhortations which imply a holy and devotional frame and 
temper of mind, and not merely acts of prayer performed at intervals. 
The high and unspeakable advantages of this habit are, that it induces 
a watchful and guarded mind ; prevents religion from deteriorating into 
a lifeless form ; unites the soul to God ; induces continual supplies of 
Divine influence ; and opposes an effectual barrier, by the grace thus 
acquired, against the encroachments of worldly anxieties and the force 
of temptations. The existence of this spirit of prayer and thanksgiving 
is one of the grand distinctions between nominal and real Christians ; 
and by it the measure of vital and effective Christianity enjoyed by any 
individual may ordinarily be determined. 

(2.) Private prayer. — This, as a duty, rests upon the express words 
of our Lord, which, while they suppose the practice of individual prayer 
to have been generally acknowledged as obligatory, enjoin that it should 
be strictly private. " But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, 
and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in 
secret ; and thy Father which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly." 
Matt, vi, 6. The duty of private prayer is also enforced by our Lord's 
own example ; who, on several occasions, retired into absolute privacy 
that he might " pray."* 

The reason for this institution of private devotion appears to have 
been, to incite us to a friendly and confiding intercourse with God, in 
all those particular cases which most concern our feelings and our inter- 
ests. Hence, when this duty is enjoined upon us by our Lord, he pre- 
sents the Divine Being before us under a relation most of all adapted to 
inspire that unlimited confidence with which he would have us to 
approach him : " Pray to thy Father which is in secret." Thus the 
dread of his omniscience, indicated by his seeing in secret, and of those 
other overwhelming attributes which omnipresence and omniscience 
cannot fail to suggest, is mitigated, or only employed to inspire greater 
freedom and a stronger affiance. 

(3.) Family prayer. — The absence of an express precept for family 
worship has been urged against its obligation, even by some who have 
considered it to be a prudential and useful practice. But the strict obli- 
gation of so important a duty is not to be given up merely on this 
* See Matt, xiv, 23 ; Luke vi, 12. 



496 THE DUTY OF PRAYER. [Book Y. 

account. As well might we conclude that we are under no obligation 
to feed and clothe our children, to teach them the use of letters, or to 
train them to some lawful employment or profession. The obligation 
of family prayer arises out of the very constitution of a family, and is 
confirmed by Scripture examples. 

First, It arises out of the very constitution of a family. It will not 
be denied by any Christian parent, that his obligation to the members 
of his family should be measured by the extent of his capacity to do 
them good, and that he is bound to honor God to the utmost extent 
of this capacity. In the providence of God he is placed at the head of 
a family ; and, therefore, in possession of a sacred trust, he has the care 
of souls. If, then, his responsibility is measured by his capacity, and if 
there is real utility in family prayer, both of which must be admitted, 
he is morally bound to perform this duty, even if the Scriptures were 
entirely silent upon the subject. But, 

Secondly, This duty has the authority of Scripture examples. A great 
part of the worship of patriarchal times was domestic. The worship of 
God was observed in the family of Abraham, Jacob, and Job ; nay, the 
highest species of worship — the offering of sacrifices — which it could not 
have been without Divine appointment. It arose, therefore, out of the 
original constitution of a family, that the father and natural head was 
invested with a sacred and religious character ; and as this has never 
been revoked, the family priesthood continues in force, and stands on 
the same ground as several other religious obligations which have passed 
from one dispensation of revealed religion to another without express 
re-enactment. 

The existence of family religion and family worship is distinctly 
marked in the history of the Jews. The passover was a solemn relig- 
ious institution, comprehending several direct acts of worship ; but it 
was placed in the hands of the heads of families, and was, therefore, 
clearly of a domestic nature. The religious instruction of the family 
was also, in the law of Moses, enjoined upon the father. He was 
required to teach his children the commandments of the Lord, and the 
import of the different festivals and commemorative institutions.* So, 
also, the family of Jesse had a yearly sacrifice ;f and of David it is said, 
that he " returned to bless his household." 2 Sam. vi, 20. But per- 
haps the clearest example of family devotion recorded in the Old Testa- 
ment is in the case of Daniel. The history informs us that "he 
kneeled upon his knees three times a day and prayed, and gave thanks 
before his God." Dan. vi, 10. That this refers to domestic worship, is 
evident from all the attendant circumstances. It was performed in his 
own house, not privately, but with his windows " open in his chamber 
toward Jerusalem ;" so that when his enemies assembled at the hour 
of devotion they " found Daniel praying and making supplication before 
* Exod. xii, 26; Deut. vi, 1 ; Josh, iv, 6. f 1 Sam. xx, 6. 



Chap. 5.] ' THE DUTY OF PRAYER. 497 

his God." It was performed, too, not merely on the occasion of its 
being interdicted by the king's decree, but according to his regular 
custom, and in obedience to what he regarded to be " the law of his 
God ;" and such was the value which he attached to this observance, 
that he was willing to make a sacrifice of all that was dear to him on 
earth, rather than to lay it aside even " for thirty days." Let Christians 
who neglect family prayer look at this and blush! 

The sacred office of the father or master of a household passed from 
Judaism into Christianity. And a duty so well understood among the 
Jews, as that the head of the family ought to influence and control its 
religious character, needed no special injunction under the new dispen- 
sation. Our Lord himself filled the office of the master of a family, as 
appears from his eating the passover with his disciples, and presiding as 
such over the whole rite. In the early spread of Christianity the father 
or master who believed was baptized, and " all his house." The first 
religious societies were chiefly domestic ; and the antiquity of domes- 
tic religious service among Christians leaves it unquestionable, that 
when their number so increased as to require them to assemble in 
some common room or Church, the domestic worship was not super- 
seded. 

(4.) Public prayer. — Under this head is included every branch of 
public worship ; the principal part of which are, prayer, praise, and the 
reading of the holy Scriptures. It is evident that praise and thanks- 
giving are implied in prayer, and included in our definition of that duty. 
But besides those ascriptions of praise, and expressions of gratitude, 
which are to be mingled with the precatory part of our devotions, 
solemn psalms and hymns of praise, to be sung with the voice, and 
accompanied with the melody of the heart, are of an apostolic injunction, 
and form an important part of the worship of God, whether public or 
social. 

II. The Obligation of Prayer. 

The question now before us is this : Why ought we to offer prayer and 
supplication to God ? And in answer to this question we offer the fol- 
lowing remarks : 

1. Prayer is urged upon us by a sense of dependence. — If the duty 
were no otherwise enforced, the fact of our entire dependence upon 
God is quite sufficient to show its reasonableness. From him, and him 
alone, flow all the blessings we now enjoy, or ever can enjoy. We are 
always, entirely, and absolutely dependent on him for every breath we 
breathe, for every word we speak, for every act we do, and for every 
favor we enjoy. To know this, is to know a most solemn and import- 
ant truth; and to feel our dependence on God, and confess this feeling 
in the exercise of prayer, is at once to conform in our feelings and actions- 
to that state of things which is agreeable to the Divine will, and, conse- 
quently, to absolute rectitude. 

32 



498 THE DUTY OF PRAYER. [Book V. 

2. Prayer is demanded by our sinful condition. — Our conduct has 
been deeply marked in every period of our being with crime and imper- 
fection. Long, indeed, is the catalogue of sins charged against us in 
the book of God's remembrance — a catalogue whose items defy our 
memory to recall or our intellect to enumerate. Having rendered our- 
selves guilty before' God, we are exposed to his wrath and the penalty 
of his law ; and being thus exposed, we ought surely to ask him for 
mercy and forgiveness. Every compunctious pang we feel, every dis- 
covery of peril we make, and every temptation with which we are 
assailed, should urge us to the throne of God for that assistance which 
he alone can afford. 

3. Prayer is expressly enjoined in the holy Scriptures. — Thus : " Seek 
the Lord and his strength ; seek his face evermore." Psa. cv, 4. " Seek 
ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near." 
Isa. lv, 6. " Let us lift our hearts with our hands unto God in the 
heavens." Lam. iii, 41. This duty is enjoined, with equal clearness, by 
Christ and his apostles : " And he spake a parable unto them to this 
end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint." Luke xviii, 1. 
So also St. Paul : " In everything by prayer and supplication, with 
thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God." Phil, iv, 6. 
a Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving." Col. 
Iv, 2. "I will, therefore, that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy 
bands, without wrath and doubting." 1 Tim. ii, 8. Many other pas- 
sages of the same import might be adduced, but these are sufficient to 
show that prayer is of Divine appointment. 

4. This duty is also enforced by Scripture examples. — The pious in 
all ages have practically acknowledged the obligation of prayer, com- 
mending it by their example. Under the patriarchal dispensation altars 
were erected to the God of heaven, and men called upon his name. It 
was in the exercise of prayer that Jacob, as a prince, prevailed with 
God, and thus inherited the name of Israel. So Samuel, David, Solo- 
mon, Daniel, and many others are spoken of in the Scriptures as men 
of prayer. Even Christ himself, though " holy, harmless, and separate 
from sinners," was attentive to this duty. He often retired to some 
lonely place, where no mortal eye could see him, and there poured out 
his supplications to the Father. St. Paul testifies of him that " in the 
days of his flesh " he " offered up prayers and supplications, with strong 
crying and tears." Heb. v, 7. He prayed for his disciples ; he prayed 
for his murderers ; and the last words that trembled on his dying lips 
were words of prayer addressed to the Father: "My God, my God, 
why hast thou forsaken me ?" This example is not only a pattern and 
motive, but it has all the force of positive law, binding us with Divine 
authority to the performance of prayer to God. 

5. As to the scriptural obligations of public worship, it is based, 

(1.) Upon example. — The institution of public worship under the law, 



Chap. 5.] THE DUTY OF PRAYER. 499 

the practice of synagogue worship among the Jews, and the sanction 
which was given to both these by the practice of our Lord and his apos- 
tles, cannot be called in question. Indeed, the order of the synagogue 
worship became the model of that of the Christian Church. It consisted 
in prayer, reading and explaining the Scriptures, and the singing of 
psalms ; and thus one of the most important means of instructing men, 
and of spreading and maintaining the influence of morals and religion 
among them, passed from the Jews into all Christian countries. 

(2.) Upon plain inference. — The command to publish the Gospel 
implies the obligation of assembling to hear it. And the very term, 
church, by which a Christian society is usually designated in Scripture, 
signifies an assembly for the transaction of some business. In the case 
of a Christian assembly the. business is necessarily spiritual, including 
the sacred exercises of prayer, praise, and religious instruction. 

(3.) Upon direct precepts. — Thus some of the epistles of St. Paul were 
commanded to be read in the churches. The singing of psalms, hymns, 
and spiritual songs is enjoined as an act of solemn worship " to the 
Lord ;" * and St. Paul cautions the Hebrews that they forsake not 
the assembling of themselves together.f Thus primitive Christians were 
in the constant practice of assembling for public worship ; and the Sup- 
per of the Lord was celebrated by the body of believers collectively. \ 

III. The Utility of Prayer. 

The utility of this Divinely commanded duty may be very justly 
argued, 

1. From the nature and attributes of God. — It has been shown that 
God has made it our duty to pray. But it would be inconsistent with 
his character and perfections to require us to do any act that would not 
be for our real good. Every argument, therefore, which proves prayer 
to be Divinely required is a proof of its utility. But the utility of prayer 
is clearly seen, 

2. In its connection, as an appointed condition, loith the bestowment 
of Divine blessings. — Our Lord says, " Every one that asketh receiveth ; 
and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be 
opened." Matt, vii, 8. Again : " Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, 
that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye ask 
anything in my name, I will do it." John xiv, 13. These are "great 
and precious promises," and may be justly regarded as securing to those 
who address God in prayer the bestowment of every blessing for which 
they ask, in accordance with the Divine will. Prayer, therefore, may 
be offered up in expectation of an answer ; and when it is " the prayer of 
faith " it is not presented in vain. " The eyes of the Lord are over the 
righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers." 1 Peter iii, 12. The 
utility of prayer is also apparent, 

3. In its direct tendency to promote an inward work of grace. — 
* See Eph. v, 19 • Col. iii, 16. f Heb. x, 25. % l Cor - **• 



500 THE DUTY OF PRAYER. [Book V. 

" Prayer," says Bishop Taylor, " is the peace of our spirit, the stillness 
of our thoughts, the rest of our cares, the calm of our tempest." The 
circulation of the vital current through its proper channels is not more 
essential to life and health than prayer is to a growth of grace in our 
hearts. In the neglect, or even in the remission of this duty, it is impos- 
sible to advance in virtue. The soul, in itself, is like the unsupported 
vine, which, instead of shooting upward, creeps upon the ground, and 
exhausts its vigor in unavailing efforts to ascend. But when animated 
with the spirit of prayer, it is like the same vine fixing its adhesive 
tendrils to the sturdy oak, rising to its summit, and waving, uninjured, 
its verdant branches in the blasts of the tempest, or maturing its fruit 
in the rays of the summer's sun. 

Prayer excites in us a vivid sense of our unworthiness, of our entire 
dependence upon God, and of our absolute need of an interest in the 
merits of Christ. It awakens holy and elevated feelings, dampens the 
spirit of levity and vanity and the love of pleasure, weans our affec- 
tions from worldly objects, and transfers them to "things above." Noth- 
ing but fervent and unceasing prayer can bring us near to our heavenly 
Father, can penetrate the clouds which darken our distant prospects, 
and disclose to our weary eyes the Sun of Righteousness, shining in his 
cheering radiance. But when we approach the throne of God with 
humble and longing hearts heaven opens to our eye of faith, and pours 
upon our waiting souls its animating glories. When sick with the sins 
and sorrows of earth ; when all the gayeties and pleasures of the present 
life lose their power to please, we find in prayer a consolation which all 
the treasure of this world can never equal. 

4. The utility of prayer is very obvious, in the advantages of public 
worship. — These are so important that the institution must ever be con- 
sidered as one of the most condescending and gracious dispensations 
of God to man. By this means his Church confesses him before the 
world, and the public teaching of his word is associated with sueh acts 
of devotion as prepare the mind for hearing it to edification. It is 
thus that the ignorant and vicious are called together and instructed 
and warned, the invitations of mercy are published to the guilty, and 
the sorrowful and afflicted are comforted. In the assembly of the saints, 
God, by his Spirit, diffuses his vital and sanctifying influence, imparts 
to all his people grace according to their need, and affords them a fore- 
taste of the deep and hallowed pleasures which await them in the life 
to come. 

Here prayers and intercessions are heard for national and public 
interests ; and while the benefit of these exercises descends upon a peo- 
ple or country, all are kept sensible of the dependence of every personal 
and public interest upon God. Praise calls forth grateful emotions, and 
gives cheerfulness to piety ; and that " instruction in righteousness " 
which is so perpetually repeated diffuses the principles of morality and 



Chap. 6.] OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. 501 

religion throughout society, enlightens and gives activity to conscience, 
raises the standard of morals, attaches shame to vice and praise 
to virtue, and thus exerts a powerfully purifying influence upon 
mankind. Human laws receive a force which under other circum- 
stances they could not acquire, and thus the administration of jus- 
tice is aided by the strong sanctions of religion. We conclude, there- 
fore, that piety, benevolence, and patriotism are equally dependent 
for their purity and vigor upon the regular and devout worship of 
God, in the simplicity of the Christian dispensation. 



CHAPTER VI. 

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. 



Another external duty which we owe to God is the observance of the 
holy Sabbath — a duty which is of vital importance to the interests of 
religion. The institution, however, is not only essential to our moral 
and religious culture, but in perfect accordance with the philosophy of 
our physical constitution ; its observance being found necessary to pre- 
serve health, and to recruit our wasted energies. In the discussion of 
the subject we will consider, 1. The universal and perpetual obligation 
of the holy Sabbath ; 2. Its change from the seventh to the first day of 
the week ; and, 3. The manner in which it is to be observed. 

I. Its universal and perpetual obligation. 

In considering and establishing the universal and perpetual obligation 
of the holy Sabbath, it will be necessary to notice, 

1. Its primitive institution. — This event is recorded in Genesis ii, 2, 3: 
" And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made ; and 
he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 
And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it ; because that in it 
he had rested from all his work which God created and made." The 
testimony which this passage affords in support of the universal and 
perpetual obligation of the Sabbath arises from the time of its appoint- 
ment, and the ends of the institution. 

(1.) The time of its appointment was the seventh day from the begin- 
ning of the creation, and the first after it was ended. At that time the 
only human beings in existence were our first parents. For them, there- 
fore, the Sabbath was instituted ; and if for them, for all their posterity. 
If it was not instituted for all their posterity, it was not instituted for 
any of them ; for surely no reason can be given why it should be insti- 
tuted for one portion of the race more than for another. " The Sab- 
bath," then, " was made for man." 



502 OBSEKVANCE OF THE SABBATH. [Book V. 

(2.) The ends of the institution hold out the same universality of 
obligation. These are, 1. To commemorate the wisdom, power, and 
goodness of God in the work of creation ; and, 2. To afford mankind 
an opportunity of resting at suitable intervals from secular employ- 
ments, and of engaging in the duties of religious worship and instruc- 
tion. The sanctification of the seventh day can mean nothing less than 
its consecration to religious purposes, for in no proper sense can sancti- 
fication or holiness be predicated of a day, except with respect to the 
uses to which it is devoted, and as distinguishing sacred from secular 
time. The sanctification of the Sabbath, therefore, must have been its 
dedication to religious purposes, involving the prohibition of all secular 
labor. 

2. Its recognition in the wilderness, as of Divine authority. — The 
first explicit notice which we have of the Sabbath, subsequent to its 
original institution, is in Exodus xvi, 23-30, and in connection with the 
miracle of the manna. " And it came to pass, that on the sixth day 
they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man ; and all the 
rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto 
them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of 
the holy Sabbath unto the Lord. Bake that which you will bake to-day, 
and seethe that ye will seethe ; and that which remaineth over lay up 
for you, to be kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the 
morning, as Moses bade ; and it did not stink, neither was there any 
worm therein. And Moses said, Eat that to-day, for to-day is a Sabbath 
unto the Lord. To-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye 
shall gather it ; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it 
there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some of 
the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And 
the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my command- 
ments and my laws? See, for the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, 
therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the* bread of two days. Abide 
ye every man in his place ; let no man go out of his place on the seventh 
day. So the people rested on the seventh day." 

From this passage Dr. Paley infers that the Sabbath was first insti- 
tuted, not at the creation, as seems to be clearly indicated in Gen. ii, 2, 3, 
but in the wilderness ; and that it was designed for the Jews alone. 
His theory is mainly based upon the two following assumptions : 1. That 
the Sabbath is nowhere mentioned, or even obscurely alluded to, either 
in the general history of the world before the call of Abraham, or in that 
of the first three Jewish patriarchs. 2. That in the passage just quoted 
from the sixteenth chapter of Exodus there is no "intimation that 
the Sabbath, when appointed to be observed, was only the revival of 
an ancient institution, which had been neglected, forgotten, or sus- 
pended." 

Were the first assumption to be fully granted, it would not disprove 



Chap. 6.] OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. . 503 

the existence of the Sabbath previous to the exodus ; for it might have 
been observed by the patriarchs, though no express mention is made of 
it in their brief history. With the exception of Jacob's supplication at 
Bethel, scarcely a single allusion to prayer is to be found in all the Pen- 
tateuch ; and yet, considering the eminent piety of those whose life it 
records, we cannot doubt the frequency of their devotional exercises. 
Circumcision, being the sign and seal of God's covenant with Abraham, 
was beyond all question punctually observed by the Israelites in all their 
generations ; yet from their settlement in Canaan till the time of John 
the Baptist, a period of about fifteen hundred years, no particular 
instance of it is recorded. 

Nor is the Sabbath itself expressly mentioned in Joshua, Judges, 
Ruth, the two books of Samuel, or the first book of Kings, though it 
was doubtless regularly observed all the time included in these histories. 
In the second book of Kings and the two books of Chronicles it is men- 
tioned only twelve times, some of which are merely repetitions of the 
same instances. If, then, the Sabbath is so seldom spoken of in this long 
historical series, is it to be thought strange that it should not be men- 
tioned in the summary account of the patriarchal ages ? 

But we cannot agree with Dr. Paley, that there is not " even the 
obscurest allusion" in the patriarchal history to the institution of the 
Sabbath. "We think it is strongly alluded to, and even clearly implied, 
in the division of time into weeks or periods of seven days.* The com- 
putation of time by days, months, and years arises from obvious revolu- 
tions in the planetary system ; but its division into periods of seven 
days has no foundation in any natural or visible septenary change. It 
must, therefore, have originated in some positive appointment, or in 
some tradition anterior to the dispersion of mankind ; and thus we are 
at once directed to the Mosaic account of the original institution of the 
holy Sabbath, as recorded in the second chapter of Genesis. 

With regard to Dr. Paley's second assumption we make the follow- 
ing remarks : 1. It is not claimed that the transaction recorded in the 
sixteenth chapter of Exodus was " the revival of an ancient institution 
which had been neglected, forgotten, or suspended." It was only the 
recognition of an institution which had been observed from the begin- 
ning, and had never been either forgotten or suspended. 2. There is 
not the slightest intimation in the passage that the event which it 
records was the original institution of the Sabbath ; but, 3. The con- 
trary seems to be the natural inference from the whole narrative. • The 
Sabbath is spoken of exactly in the manner in which a historian would 
speak of a well-known institution. For instance, when the people were 
astonished at the double supply of manna on the sixth day, Moses 
observed, "This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the 
rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord ;" which, as far as we know, 
* See Gen. viii, 10, 12; xxix, 27, 28. 



504 OBSEKVANCE OF THE SABBATH. [Book V. 

was never said previous to this transaction, except at the close of crea- 
tion. When a double portion of manna was promised on the sixth day, 
no reason was assigned for so extraordinary a circumstance ; which 
seems to imply that the reason was known to the Israelites. Again : 
" Six days ye shall gather it ; but on the seventh day, which is the Sab- 
bath, in it there shall be none." Here the Sabbath is spoken of as an 
ordinance with which the people were familiar. It is likewise mentioned 
in a merely incidental manner, in the recital of the miracle of the manna, 
without any notice of its being enjoined upon that occasion for the first 
time ; which would be a very surprising circumstance had that been 
the original establishment of the Sabbath. In short, the whole account 
of this remarkable transaction accords with the supposition, and with 
it alone, that the Sabbath had been long established, and was well known 
to the Israelites. 

Dr. Paley attempts to show that the passage in the second chapter of 
Genesis is consistent with his opinion. " For," says he, " as the seventh 
day was erected into a Sabbath, on account of God's resting upon that 
day from the work of creation, it was natural enough in the historian, 
when he had related the history of the creation, and of God's ceasing 
from it on the seventh day, to add, 'And God blessed the seventh day, 
and sanctified it, because that on it he had rested from all his work 
which God created and made ;' although the blessing and sanctification, 
that is, the religious distinction and appropriation of that day, were not 
actually made till many ages afterward. The words do not assert that 
God then ' blessed ' and ' sanctified ' the seventh day, but that he blessed 
and sanctified it for that reason; and if any ask, why the Sabbath, or 
sanctification of the seventh day, was then mentioned, if it was not then 
appointed, the answer is at hand : the order of connection, and not of 
time, introduced the mention of the Sabbath in the history of the sub- 
ject which it was ordained to commemorate." * 

We can hardly suppose a greater violence to the sacred text than is 
offered by this interpretation. The historian tells us that " God blessed 
the seventh day, and sanctified it ;" but the interpretation assumes that 
he blessed and sanctified some other day, after the lapse of twenty-five 
hundred years, and not the seventh day, in which he "rested from. all 
his work." Thus, Dr. Paley's interpretation is a direct contradiction of 
the language of Moses ; and it is not difficult to determine, in this case, 
whose teaching we ought to embrace. 

Nor is there the slightest evidence that Moses followed " the order of 
connection and not of time ;" for no reasonable motive can be assigned 
for his mentioning the Sabbath in connection with the history of crea- 
tion, if it was not then appointed. The resting of God on the seventh 
day, and the sanctification of that day, are too closely connected to be 
separated in time. If the former took place immediately after the work 
* Moral and Political Philosophy, book 4, chap. 1. 



Chap. 6.] OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. 505 

of creation was ended, so did the latter. It was clearly the design of 
the sacred historian to give a faithful account of the origin of the world, 
and to this the whole narrative is confined without the most distant allu- 
sion to subsequent events. It is, therefore, absurd to suppose that he 
deserted his grand object to mention a Hebrew ordinance which was 
not appointed till after a period of more than two thousand years. 

3. Its inclusion in the Decalogue. — This circumstance, perhaps more 
than any other, establishes the universal and perpetual obligation of the 
holy Sabbath. The language of the fourth commandment is, "Remem- 
ber the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do 
all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. 
In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, 
thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger 
that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and 
earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. 
Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it." Exod. 
xx, 8-11. 

To perceive the light which this commandment throws upon the sub- 
ject before us we must carefully consider the following remarks : 

(1.) We are not to suppose that the Decalogue imposed new duties 
upon men which had never before been required. - It only enjoined 
those which had been previously instituted. Impiety, idolatry, and pro- 
faneness were sins before the delivery of the Ten Commandments as 
really as since. The same is true of disobedience to parents, of murder, 
of theft, and of adultery. The giving of the Decalogue, therefore, did 
not originate the laws which it contains, but was only a republication 
of them in a new and convenient form, and under circumstances which 
were calculated to make them most solemnly impressive. The fourth 
commandment contains two distinct allusions to the previous institution 
of the Sabbath. The first is in the clause "Remember the Sabbath- 
day," which represents the Sabbath as having been previously insti- 
tuted, and requires that it should not be forgotten, or suffered to fall 
into disuse. The second is in the reason assigned for keeping the Sab- 
bath. It is " the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ;" the day in which he 
"rested" from all his creative work. "Wherefore, the Lord blessed 
the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it." Thus the seventh day was set apart 
from the beginning as a holy day of sacred rest. 

(2.) The fourth commandment is a part of the moral laio. This may 
be argued from the fact that it is united with the other commandments 
of the Decalogue, which are all acknowledged to be moral precepts. It 
is placed in the midst of this summary of moral law, being the last 
precept of the first table, and is therefore included in what our Lord 
calls "the first and great commandment," namely, "Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all 
thy mind." Matt, xxii, 37, 38. Would it not, then, be most absurd to 



506 OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. [Book V. 

suppose that this precept should be detached from those with which it 
is so closely connected, and regarded as merely ceremonial, while all 
the rest are acknowledged to be moral f 

But that the law of the Sabbath is a moral precept may be further 
argued from the circumstances of solemnity which attended its promul- 
gation. This commandment, together with the other nine, was uttered 
in an audible and awful voice from the midst of the thunderings and 
lightnings which crowned the top of Sinai with "dreadful glory. Such 
were the splendor and majesty of this scene that when the people 
" saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, 
and the mountain smoking, they removed and stood afar off. And they 
said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear ; but let not God 
speak with us, lest we die." Even Moses himself said, " I exceedingly 
fear and quake." Heb. xii, 21. It is also to be added that this command- 
ment, as well as the other nine, was written by ihe finger of God — a 
distinction which cannot be claimed for any precept which is merely 
ceremonial. 

Again, this commandment is frequently referred to by the sacred 
writers as one of moral obligation. Hence the most solemn threaten- 
ings are uttered against those who disregard it, while the greatest 
rewards are promised to those who obey it. " Ye shall keep the Sab- 
bath, therefore, for it is holy unto you. Every one that defileth it shall 
surely be put to death ; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that 
soul shall be cut off from among his people." Exod. xxxi, 14. "If thou 
turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my 
holy day ; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honor- 
able, and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine 
own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words : then shalt thou delight 
thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places 
of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father, for 
the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isa. lviii, 13, 14. 

(3.) If, then, the fourth commandment is a part of the moral law, it 
must be of universal and perpetual obligation. This fact is very forcibly 
indicated by the manner in which the precepts of this law were origin- 
ally recorded. A table or pillar of stone was in ancient times a direct 
symbol of the perpetuity of whatever was engraved upon it. This very 
natural symbol God was pleased to employ in the case before us. 
Hence it is reasonable to believe that he intended to distinguish the 
Decalogue from every other part of the Mosaic Law, and to mark its 
superior importance and perpetuity by writing it with his own hand on 
tables of stone. It is incredible that God should distinguish the fourth 
commandment, together with the other nine, in so solemn a manner if he 
had not intended that all men should regard it as of perpetual obligation. 

It is also worthy of remark that this commandment is delivered in 
the same absolute manner as the other nine. The fifth commandment, 



Chap. 6.] OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. 507 

" Honor thy father and thy mother," is obligatory on all children to 
whom the precept comes. So, likewise, the eighth, "Thou shalt not 
steal," is binding upon all who know it, whether Jew or Gentile. 
Accordingly, every one who knows the fourth commandment is bound 
to " remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy." 

(4.) If the moral law is the law of all men, it is the law of Christians; 
and if it is the law of Christians, then is the Sabbath as explicitly 
enjoined upon us as it was upon the Jews. That the moral law is our 
law, as well as the law of the Jews, all but Antinomians must acknowl- 
edge ; and few, we suppose, will be inclined to plunge themselves into 
the fearful mazes of that error in order to support lax notions respect- 
ing the obligation of the Sabbath. That the law of the Decalogue is 
binding upon us the Scriptures of the New Testament clearly prove. 

Our Lord says, " Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the 
prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matt, v, 17. If by 
" the law " he meant both the moral and the ceremonial law, he fulfilled 
the latter by fulfilling its types, and the former by upholding its author- 
ity. A similar distinction may be made in regard to " the prophets." 
They either enjoined morality, or uttered prophecies respecting Christ. 
The latter were fulfilled in the sense of accomplishment ; the former by 
being sanctioned and enforced. That the observance of the Sabbath is 
a part of the moral law we have before shown, and for this reason the 
injunctions of the prophets respecting the Sabbath are to be regarded 
as a part of their moral teaching. 

The preceding passage from our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, with 
its context, is a sufficiently explicit enforcement of the moral law gen- 
erally upon his followers. But when he says, " The Sabbath was made 
for man," he clearly refers to its original institution as a universal law, 
and not to its obligation upon the Jews only, in consequence of the 
enactments of the law of Moses. It " was made for man" not as he 
may be a Jew or a Christian, but as man, a creature bound to love, 
worship, and obey his God and Maker, and on his trial for eternity. 

Another explicit proof that the law of the Ten Commandments, and, 
consequently, the law of the Sabbath, is obligatory on Christians, is 
found in Romans iii, 31 : "Do we then make void the law through 
faith ?" which is equivalent to asking, Does Christianity teach that the 
law is no longer obligatory on Christians, because it teaches that no man 
can be justified by it ? To this the apostle answers in the most solemn 
form of expression, " God forbid ; ye*a, we establish the law." Now, 
the sense in which he uses the phrase, " the law," in this argument, is 
indubitably marked in Romans vii, 7 : " I had not known sin but by 
the law ; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt 
not covet." Here the apostle refers directly to one of the precepts of 
the Decalogue ; and this plainly shows that the Decalogue is "Jhe law" 
of which he speaks, and which is "established" by the Gospel as the 



508 OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. [Book V, 

rule of all inward and outward holiness. Whoever, therefore, denies 
the obligation of the Sabbath on Christians, denies the obligation of the 
whole Decalogue ; and there is no medium between the acknowledg- 
ment of the Divine authority of this sacred institution, as a universal 
law, and that gross corruption of Christianity generally denominated 
Antinomianism. 

II. The change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the fiest 

DAY OF THE WEEK. 

In giving a satisfactory account of the change of the Sabbath from 
the seventh to the first day of the week, it will be important to show, 
1 . That such a change is compatible with the nature of the institution ; 
and, 2. That it was made by Divine authority. 

1. The change is compatible with the' nature of the institution. — To 
see this in its true light it is only necessary to observe, 

(1.) That the law of the Sabbath is partly moral and partly positive. 
Or in other words, the institution consists of two parts : the Sabbath, 
or holy rest ; and the day on which it is observed. These are plainly 
alluded to as distinct from each other when it is said that the Lord 
" rested the seventh day," and " blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed 
it." He did not bless and hallow the day as the seventh, but only as 
being the day on which the Sabbath, or holy rest, was to be kept. 
While, therefore, the Sabbath itself is a perpetual institution, morally 
binding upon all men, the law which determines the time of its observ- 
ance is purely positive, and consequently may be changed. But though 
the day might be altered, without altering the substance of the institu- 
tion, yet it could be altered only by Divine authority. The same 
authority which instituted the Sabbath, appointed also the day on which 
it was to be observed ; and no other authority is competent to change 
either the one or the other. 

(2.) That the same portion of time which constituted the seventh day 
from the creation could not be observed in all parts of the earth. It is 
not probable, therefore, that the original law required more than that 
a seventh day, or one day in seven, the seventh day after six days of 
labor, should be thus appropriated, from whatever point the hebdom- 
adal cycle might begin. For if more had been intended, then it 
would have been necessary to establish a rule for the reckoning of days 
themselves, which has been different in different nations ; some reckon- 
ing from evening to evening, and others from midnight to -midnight. 
But if we could be absolutely certain as to the mode of reckoning days 
when the Sabbath was first instituted, the differences of latitude and 
longitude would throw the whole into disorder ; and it is not probable 
that a universal law should have been fettered with that circumstantial 
exactness which would have rendered difficult, and sometimes doubtful 
astronomical calculations necessary, in order to its being obeyed accord- 
ing to the intention of the Lawgiver. Hence we conclude, 



Chap. 6.] OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. 509 

(3.) That the precise time of the Sabbath is not essential to the insti- 
tution, and that this may be changed by Divine authority, without 
making any alteration in the law of the Sabbath either as it stands in 
the second chapter of Genesis, or in the fourth commandment. It is, 
therefore, as consistent with the nature of the institution for Christians 
to observe the first day of the week, as it was for Jews to observe the 
seventh. We are not to suppose, however, that every man has a right 
to determine which day of the week should be his Sabbath, though he 
should fulfill the law so far as to abstract the seventh part of his time 
from labor. It was ordained for public worship ; and it is, therefore, 
necessary that it should be uniformly observed by a whole community 
at the same time. The Divine legislator of the Jews interposed for this 
end by special direction, as to his people. The first Sabbath kept in the 
wilderness was calculated from the first day in which the manna fell, 
and with no apparent reference to the creation of the world. By apos- 
tolic authority it is now fixed to be held on the first day of the week, 
and thus one of the great ends for which it was established, that it 
should be a day of " holy convocation," is secured. 

2. The change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was made 
by Divine authority. — In order to establish this proposition we offer 
the following remarks : 

(1.) One grand end of the original institution of the Sabbath was, to 
commemorate the creation of the world. The reason why God chose 
that the work of creation should be thus commemorated, rather than 
the deluge, or the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, was, it is 
presumed, the peculiar greatness of the work itself, as also the display 
which it furnished of his glorious perfections. If this be admitted, as it 
probably will be by every sober man, it must also be admitted that we 
ought to expect, according to this scheme, that the greater and more 
glorious work of redemption should be commemorated with equal or 
greater solemnity. In the accomplishment of this work the resurrec- 
tion of Christ was the crowning event. It completed the chain of evi- 
dence by which his Messiahship was established. It ivas his triumph 
over death, and a triumphant vindication of all his claims. Hence, 
since the resurrection of Christ, the first day of the week has been 
observed as the Christian Sabbath in honor of that event, and in com- 
memoration of the work of redemption. 

It is to be remembered, however, that the original institution is still 
substantially preserved. The Sabbath still returns upon one day in 
seven. It is still a memorial of the creation of the world ; while the 
new creation, as its importance demands, takes its own superior place 
in the commemoration. Thus the institution, instead of being abro- 
gated, is made the memorial of two wonderful works of God, instead 
of one. While it is a memorial of creation, it is so enlarged as to com- 
memorate also the work of redemption. 



510 OBSEKVANCE OF THE SABBATH. [Book V. 

(2.) It is admitted that there is not on record any Divine command 
issued to the apostles to change the Sabbath from the day on which it 
was held by the Jews to the first day of the week. But when we see 
that this was done in the apostolic age, and that St. Paul speaks of the 
Jewish Sabbaths as not being obligatory upon Christians, while he con- 
tends that the whole moral law is obligatory upon them, the fair infer- 
ence is, that this change of the day was made by Divine direction. It 
will hardly be denied, that the change was made under the sanction of 
the inspired and divinely appointed rulers of the Church of Christ, 
whose business it was to " set all things in order " which pertained to 
its worship and moral government. It follows, therefore, that in observ- 
ing the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath we act under 
apostolic authority. 

(3.) The first day of the week was observed by the apostolic Churches 
as a day of public worship. "And upon the first day of the week, when 
the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, 
ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until mid- 
night." Acts xx, 7. This took place at Troas, where Paul and his com- 
panions abode seven days ; the last of which was the first day of the 
week. On this day " the disciples came together to break bread;" or, 
in other words, to partake of the Lord's Supper. But if the seventh 
day of the week had been the Christian Sabbath, and the day of public 
worship, the administration of this sacrament would naturally have 
belonged to that day. Though Paul and his companions were there for 
several days, yet no mention is made of any religious service on the 
seventh day of the week ; but it is expressly stated that " the disciples 
came together," and that " Paul preached to them " on " the first day 
of the week." The object of the meeting is also stated to have been 
the breaking of bread, which clearly indicates that the first day of the 
week was regarded as the Christian Sabbath. 

(4.) The first day of the week is denominated, in the New Testament, 
the Lord^s day, in distinction from the Jewish Sabbath, and from 
all other days. " I was," says St. John, " in the Spirit on the Lord's 
day." Rev. i, 10. The phrase "Lord's day " is similar to that of "Lord's 
Supper," which occurs in 1 Corinthians xi, 20. And as the " Lord's 
Supper " is a sacred supper, so, by the same rule, the " Lord's day " is a 
sacred day. There would be a manifest impropriety in calling a common 
supper the Lord's Supper ; and a similar impropriety in calling a secular 
day the Lord's day. St. John uses the phrase "Lord's day" without 
otherwise indicating which of the seven days of the week he referred to ; 
thus evidently showing that when the Apocalypse was written there 
was a day known and observed by Christians generally as the " Lord's 
day." That this was the first day of the week, which was kept in 
memory of the resurrection of our Lord, is abundantly evident from the 
history of the Church. 



Chap. 6.] OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. 511 

Ignatius, a companion of the apostles, says, in so many words, " Let 
us no more Sabbatize," that is, keep the Jewish Sabbath, " but let us 
keep the Lord^s day, on which our Life arose." 

Ieenjeus, Bishop of Lyons, who lived in the second century, says, 
" On the Lord's day every one of us, Christians, keeps the Sabbath ; 
meditating in the law, and rejoicing in the works of God." 

DiONYSius, Bishop of Corinth, who also lived in the second century, 
says in his letter to the Church at Rome, " To-day we celebrate the 
Lord's day when we read your epistle to us." 

Other allusions to the Christian Sabbath under the title of the Lord's 
day occur in the writings of the early Christian fathers. These evi- 
dences show clearly, that the day called the Lord's day by St. John 
was the first day of the week ; and that it was set apart and distin- 
guished from the other days, in consideration of its having been the 
day of Christ's resurrection. The first day of the week, in being thus 
described as the Lord's day, is evidently distinguished from other 
days considered as secular days, and marked as a sacred day, or holy 
Sabbath. 

(5.) This day is distinguished from all other days of the week by 
God's gracious dispensations. The first of these is the resurrection of 
our Lord. This event raised the drooping hopes of the apostles and 
other primitive Christians, and laid the foundation for the successful 
propagation of Christianity. It is customary to observe, annually, days 
which have been distinguished by public benefits ; but so great is the 
benefit obtained on this day that it demands a weekly commemoration. 
" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which accord- 
ing to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." 

The first appearances of Christ to his disciples, after his resurrection, 
were on the morning of the day he rose.* He appeared again to ten of 
the disciples, Thomas being absent, in the evening of the same day.f 
On the next first day of the week he appeared to his disciples, and found 
them all assembled together, as if for religious worship.]; Thus we have 
two first days specified as days on which Christ appeared, but there is 
no such specification in regard to the Jewish Sabbath. 

The day of Pentecost, so distinguished by the gift of the Holy Ghost, 
was also the first day of the week. On this day there was the most 
remarkable outpouring of the Spirit that ever occurred, in consequence 
of which about three thousand persons were converted and added to the 
Church. But why was the honor of the Pentecostal blessing conferred on 
the first day of the week, and not on the seventh ? To this question no 
satisfactory answer can be given, unless we allow that God intended, by 
this dispensation, to place his seal upon it as a perpetual Christian Sab- 
bath. 

* Matt, xxviii, 9, 10 ; Mark xvi, 9, 12. f John xx, 19-24. % John xx, 26-29. 



512 OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. [Book V. 

(6.) God has signally honored the observance of the Christian Sab- 
bath with his blessing. If it were a human institution, it would be one 
of great impiety ; for to neglect the Sabbath of God's own appointment, 
and to observe one appointed by man in its place, would be highly dis- 
honorable and offensive to God. It would be virtually to say that God 
did not appoint the proper day, and that we can improve upon his insti- 
tutions. But how has God treated the observance of the first day of 
the week as the Christian Sabbath ? Has he refused to bless religious 
assemblies on this day ? Has he visited them with any perceptible 
marks of his displeasure ? By no means. On the contrary, he has 
crowned the observance of the Christian Sabbath with most distinguished 
blessings, and has made it subservient to all the great interests of mo- 
rality and religion. " On this day millions of the human race have been 
born unto God. From the word and ordinances of God, from the influ- 
ences of the Holy Spirit, from the presence of Christ in his Church, 
Christians have derived on this day, more than on all others, the most 
delightful views of the Divine character, clear apprehensions of their 
own duty, lively devotion to the service of God, strength to overcome 
temptations, and glorious anticipations of immortality."* Thus God has 
set his seal upon the Christian Sabbath as one of the institutions of true 
religion. 

These considerations, when taken together, fully prove that the 
change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week is 
of Divine authority, and that, consequently, we are under obligation to 
keep the Christian Sabbath and not the Jewish. No change, however, 
is made in the service required on this day, or in the manner of observ- 
ing it, except such as necessarily arises from a change of dispensations. 
Religious worship still continues to be the appropriate business of the 
Sabbath, as it was formerly ; and though it is performed in a different 
mode, it is the same in spirit and design. 

III. The manner in which the Sabbath is to be observed. 

The obligation of a Sabbatical observance upon Christians being estab- 
lished, the inquiry which naturally follows is, In what manner is this 
great festival, at once so ancient and venerable, and intended to com- 
memorate events so illustrious and so important to mankind, to be cele- 
brated ? To this a sufficient answer will be found in the Decalogue, in 
incidental passages of Scripture, and in the discourses and acts of Christ 
and his apostles. 

The fourth commandment refers to this subject in the following terms : 
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. In it thou shalt not do 
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor 
thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy 
gates." Hence, the law of the Sabbath may be considered both in 
regard to what it forbids, and to what it enjoins. We will consider it, 
* Dwight's Theology, vol. 3, p. 244. 



Chap. 6.] OBSEKVANCE OF THE SABBATH. . 513 

1. In regard to what ft forbids. — The law prohibits all kinds of secu- 
lar labor on the Sabbath. " In it thou shalt not do any work." This 
prohibition has reference, 

(1.) To the government of our own conduct. It forbids all labor, 
whether manual or mental, which has not for its object the worship of 
God, or our own religious improvement. The law itself is expressed in 
the most comprehensive and unlimited terms, prohibiting without excep- 
tion all manner of labor ; but it was certainly, not intended by the Law- 
giver that it should be interpreted in its strict and literal sense. The 
prohibition cannot comprehend, in its true interpretation, works of 
necessity and mercy, because such a prohibition would be wrong. It 
would be inconsistent with a benevolent provision for the wants and 
necessities of men, and with the declaration of Christ, that " The Sab- 
bath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark ii, 27. 

The law, therefore, in its true import, allows several exceptions to 
the literal requirement, and actually demands them. These exceptions 
are called works of necessity and mercy. The necessity, however, must 
be one which is imposed by the providence of God, and not by our own 
will. Thus, a ship, when on a voyage, may sail on the Sabbath as well 
as on any other day without violating the rule ; but it would be evi- 
dently violated by commencing the voyage on the Sabbath, because, in 
this case, a choice of days is in the power of the master. 

The law, then, requires men to refrain from all kinds of work on the 
Sabbath which can be omitted without essential and necessary injury. 
It forbids the pursuit of pleasure, or of any animal or merely intellect- 
ual gratification. An intemperate indulgence of appetite, journeying 
for amusement, social visiting, the reading of books designed merely to 
gratify the taste or the imagination, are all violations of the Sabbatic 
law. But, 

(2.) The prohibition has reference to the labor of those who are com- 
mitted to our charge. It is made the duty of parents to enforce the 
observance of the Sabbath upon their children, and of masters upon 
their servants. The duty of sustaining the Sabbath by authority is one 
of the utmost importance, and especially in the case of parents. If 
they train up their children in Sabbath-keeping habits, they confer upon 
them inestimable benefits ; but if they neglect to do this, they expose 
them to incalculable evil. Nor is it enough for parents to advise their 
children to keep the Sabbath. They ought to command them to do 
it, and to enforce their commands by suitable motives. 

A similar authority is to be exercised over servants, as far as they 
are the subjects of domestic control. But even where the heads of 
families possess only advisory power, they are required to employ that 
power in promoting the due observance of the Sabbath. Hence their 
duty extends to the " stranger that is within " their gates, as well as 
to children and servants. 

33 



514 . OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. [Book V. 

(3.) Beasts of burden employed in our service are also included in 
that law of the Sabbath which forbids labor and ordains rest to man. 
They need the repose which it grants, and we are required to let them 
have it. He who hires out his cattle or horses on the Sabbath day is 
as guilty of its violation as if he worked with his own hands. But we 
will consider the law of the Sabbath, 

2. In regard to what it enjoins. — Though the Sabbath is a day of 
rest, yet it is not a day of idleness. In it we are to be actively 
employed in the solemn and immediate duties of religion. " Remember 
the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy.'''' This is to be done in the use of those 
means which God has appointed for his own worship, and for our spirit- 
ual edification. Such means are to be observed with fervor and con- 
stancy in our public assemblies, in our families, and in the closet. 

(1.) In our public assemblies. — It appears to have been designed, in 
the institution of the Sabbath, to afford men the most favorable oppor- 
tunity of uniting together in the public and solemn worship of God. No 
other day is so well adapted to the purpose. It was therefore com- 
manded in the law, " On the seventh day ye shall have an holy convo- 
cation." Num. xxviii, 25. It was the invariable practice of our Lord 
to attend the services of the synagogue on the Sabbath day. The first 
Christians also, and after them the whole Christian Church, thus hal- 
lowed the first day of the week by coming together for religious serv- 
ices. Can we follow better examples ? Let us not be unwilling, but 
esteem it our highest privilege to wait upon the Lord in the public 
assembly, and to enjoy communion with him and his people. How 
encouraging the promise, " Where two or three are gathered together 
in my name, there am I in the midst of them !" Matt, xviii, 20. 

(2.) In our families. — God should be worshiped, not at church only, 
but in our houses. And in general, there are no opportunities so suita- 
ble for attending to the spiritual interests of children and servants as 
those which the Sabbath affords. If this great concern is neglected 
then, we may presume that it is neglected during the rest of the week. 
Let parents and masters, then, consider their important trust. Do they 
call together their families, and begin the day with praise and prayer ? 
Do they exhort and command those who are committed to their care 
to improve the sacred season ? Do they lead them to the house of God, 
and teach them to be serious and devout in their deportment ? Do they 
spend part of the day in giving them catechetical instruction on relig- 
ious subjects ? Were the Sabbath to be thus sanctified in every family 
true religion would revive and spread among us, and blessings would 
crown the rising generation. 

(3.) In the closet. — Without private devotion, public ordinances, the 
most solemn addresses of ministers, or the pious exhortations of parents 
and friends, will be of no real profit. Retirement after the public duties 
of the Sabbath is to the soul what digestion after eating is to the 



Chap. 7.] THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. 515 

body; and every one knows that the most excellent food not properly 
digested must fail in affording nourishment. In general, men find but 
little leisure on other days for religious solitude, and for this reason 
the Sabbath should be to them the more precious. They can then retire 
to their closets without fear of interruption, and fill up every interval in 
reading, meditation, and prayer. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. 



As love to God is the sum of the first table of the moral law, so the 
precepts of the second are all comprised in love to man. Hence they 
are epitomized by our Lord in this one injunction, " Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself." Matt, xxii, 39. The whole law, then, is a law of 
love ; and accordingly St. Paul declares, " Love is the fulfilling of the 
law." Rom. xiii, 10. In the investigation of this law of love, so far as 
it respects the duties which we owe to our neighbor, we will consider 
it first in its general character as a principle of moral action ; and, 
secondly, in its application to particular duties. The former will occupy 
the present chapter. 

In order to understand the nature and general character of that evan- 
gelical love of our neighbor which the law of God demands, we must 
consider it, 1. In its source; 2. In what it excludes; and, 3. In what it 
requires. We must consider it, 

I. In its source. 

The only source of genuine love to our neighbor is a regenerated 
state of mind. We have shown that the love of God springs from the 
gift of the Holy Spirit to those who are justified by faith in Christ; and 
that every sentiment which, in any other circumstances, assumes this 
designation is imperfect or simulated. We make the same remark in 
regard to the love of our neighbor. If it does not flow from the love 
of God, the only sure mark of a regenerate nature, it is an imperfect or 
simulated sentiment. Without true love to God there can be no true 
love to man ; nor can there be true love to God without regenerating 
grace. 

The existence of morals without piety is, therefore, not to be pre- 
sumed. Human nature is too perverse to be restrained independent of 
religious motives. The instant the doctrine of future retribution is 
obliterated from the mind the influence of moral obligation ceases to 
operate. Philosophy may declaim with all her power upon the advant- 
ages of virtue in the present life, but, in the absence of Christian 



516 THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

motives, she will declaim in vain. It is only the powerful and persua- 
sive influence of Scripture doctrines that will induce a course of moral 
conduct contributive to social happiness. 

We see, therefore, in this view of the subject the superior nature of 
Christian morals, or of morals when kept in connection, as they should 
always be, with the doctrines of the Gospel and the regenerating work 
of the Holy Spirit. There may, indeed, be a degree of natural benevo- 
lence which, if aided by well-directed education, may counteract the 
malevolent and selfish feelings of our nature. Yet love to man, as a 
religious principle, and in its full operation, can only result from a 
change of heart by the power of Divine grace, because that only can 
subdue the affections to the obedience which the law of love requires. 
But the love of our neighbor is to be considered, 

II. IlST REGARD TO WHAT IT EXCLUDES. 

It is a matter of great importance to Christian morality that we 
should gain a clear understanding of what is excluded by that love of 
our neighbor which is enjoined upon us by Christ and his apostles. To 
aid in the obtainment of this object we may remark, 

1. That it excludes all anger and hatred toward our fellow-men. — It 
is true, these are emotions of which we are necessarily susceptible, and 
which may exist in perfect harmony with the law of love. ' They are 
indeed expressly ascribed in the Scriptures to God himself. It is 
asserted that he "is angry with the wicked every day." Psa. vii, 11. 
So of Christ it is said, on a certain occasion, that he looked on the peo- 
ple " with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." Mark 
iii, 5. God declares, "I hate robbery for burnt-offering." Isa. lx, 8. 
And Solomon tells us that " the fear of the Lord is to hate evil." Pro v. 
viii, 13. 

It follows, therefore, that the emotions of anger and hatred are not 
sinful in themselves. They only become sinful when they contravene 
the law of love ; and in this sense they are explicitly condemned in the 
Scriptures. Our Lord says, "Whosoever shall be angry with his 
brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." Matt, 
v, 22. So also St. Paul, " Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and 
clamor be put away from you, with all malice" Ephes. iv, 31. St. John 
testifies, " He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in 
darkness even until now." 1 John ii, 9. Again, " Whosoever hateth his 
brother is a murderer." 1 John iii, 15. "If a man say, I love God, 
and hateth his brother, he is a liar." 1 John iv, 20. 

2. It excludes all revenge. — We must exact no punishment of another 
for offenses against ourselves. For, though it is lawful and right to 
inflict penalties upon those who offend against society, yet this is never 
to be done on the principle of private revenge, but on the public ground 
that law and government are ordained of God. The Divine injunction 
is, " Recompense to no man evil for evil ;" and again, "Avenge not your- 



Chap. 7.] THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. 517 

selves ; but rather give place to wrath : for it is written, Vengeance is 
mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Rom. xii, 17, 19. 

3. It excludes all implacability. — This is deemed so great a violation 
of that law of love which ought to bind all men together, that if we do 
not promptly and generously forgive our offending neighbor God will 
not forgive us. " If ye forgive men their trespasses," says our Lord, 
" your heavenly Father will also forgive you ; but if ye forgive not men 
their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matt. 
vi, 14, 15. When Peter inquired, "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin 
against me, and I forgive him ? till seven times ?" Jesus replied, " I 
say not unto thee, Until seven times ; but, tJntil seventy times seven." 
Matt, xviii, 21, 22. In agreement with these Scriptures we have the 
exhortation of the apostle : " Be kind one to another, tender-hearted, 
forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." 
Ephes. iv, 32. 

4. It excludes all censoriousness or evil-speaking. — This consists in 
relating what is improper or wrong in an absent person when duty or 
truth does not require it. For, whenever the end is merely to lower a 
person in the estimation of others, it is resolvable into a splenetic and 
immoral feeling. Hence St. Paul exhorts Christians to let all " evil speak- 
ing be put away from" them. St. James says, "Speak not evil one of 
another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his 
brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law." James iv, 11. 

5. It excludes, as limitations to its exercise, all those adventitious 
distinctions which have been created by men, by providential arrange- 
ments, or by accidental circumstances. — Men of all nations, of all colors, 
of all conditions, are the objects of the unlimited precept, " Thou shalt 
love thy neighbor as thyself." Kind feelings produced by natural 
instincts, by intercourse, by country, may call the love of our neighbor 
into warmer exercise as individuals or classes of men ; or these may be 
considered as distinct and special, though similar affections superadded 
to this universal charity ; but as to all men this character is an efficient 
affection, excluding all ill-will and all injury. Let us, then, consider the 
love of our neighbor, 

III. With respect to what it requires. 

This love, considered as a general principle of moral action, has 
respect to those duties which are equally incumbent upon all men. 
These are clearly indicated in few words by the prophet Micah : " He 
hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord 
require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly 
with thy God?" Micah vi, 8. They are also included in our Lord's 
golden rule: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so them; for this is the law and the 
prophets." Matt, vii, 12. From these Scriptures it is evident that the 
law of love requires us to exercise justice and benevolence toward all men. 



518 THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

1. It requires us "to do justly." — This is most obviously implied in 
doing to others as we would that they should do to us. Justice con- 
sists in giving to every one his due, or in acting in all things accord- 
ing to the principles of rectitude. "Render, therefore," says the 
apostle, " to all their dues ; tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom 
to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." 
Rom. xiii, 1. 

The exercise of universal justice, commonly called ethical justice, 
would secure to all men the enjoyment of their natural rights. These 
are briefly summed up in three — life, property, and liberty. 

(1.) Our natural right to' life is guarded by the precept "Thou shalt 
not kill." This right is limited by the still more ancient injunction to 
the sons of Noah : " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his 
blood be shed." Gen. ix, 6. In a state of society this right may be 
further limited by a government, and capital punishment may be 
extended to other crimes, as we see in the laws of Moses. But against 
all individual authority the life of man is absolutely secured ; and not 
only so, but anger, which is the first principle of violence, and which 
proceeds first to malignity and revenge and then to personal injuries, is 
prohibited under the penalty of the Divine wrath — a lofty prOof of the 
superior character of the Christian rule of justice. 

But here it may be inquired, Have not men the power of surrender- 
ing, at their own option, the right of life ? To this we reply, 

First, that since government is an institution of God it seems obliga- 
tory on all men to live in a social state ; and if so, to each is conceded 
the right of putting his life to hazard when called upon by his govern- 
ment to defend that state from domestic rebellion or foreign war. So, 
also, we have the power to hazard our life to save a fellow-creature from 
perishing. In times of persecution for religion we are commanded by 
our Lord to flee from one city or place to another ; but when flight is 
cut off we have the power to surrender life rather than betray our alle- 
giance to Christ. According to the apostle's rule, " Ave ought to lay 
down our lives for the brethren ;" that is, for the Church and the cause 
of religion. In this case, and in some others accompanied with danger 
to life, when a plain rule of duty is seen to be binding upon us we are 
not only at liberty to take the risk, but are bound to do it, since it is 
more our duty to obey God than to take care of our life. But, 

Secondly, this power over our life does not extend to self-destruction 
or suicide. The precept "Thou shalt not kill" must be taken to forbid 
not only murder properly so called, but the taking away of human life 
in all cases, except by the authority of human governments proceeding 
upon the rules and principles of the word of God. It is true, the Mosaic 
law is entirely silent as to the punishment of suicide. In this, however, 
there is good reason, for the subject himself is, by his own direful act, 
put beyond the reach of human authority, and must be left wholly to 



Chap. 7.] THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. 519 

the retribution of God. Moreover, every dishonor done to the inani- 
mate corpse is only a punishment inflicted upon the innocent survivors, 
who, in most cases, have a large measure of suffering otherwise inflicted 
upon them. But we must not suppose that the absence of all post 
mortem penalties against suicide in the Mosaic law is a proof that it is 
not included in the precept against murder. As well might we 
suppose, because thefts and other instances of covetousness in action 
only are restrained in the Mosaic law by positive penalties, that 
the precept "Thou shalt not covet" does not forbid a covetous dis- 
position. 

That suicide has very deservedly received the morally descriptive 
appellation of self-murder will appear from the reason given to ISToah 
for making murder a capital crime. The precept is, " "Whoso sheddeth 
man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ;" and then the reason is 
added, "for in the image of God made he man" There is in this 
reason a manifest reference to the dignity put upon human nature by 
its being endowed with a rational and immortal spirit. The crime of 
murder is, therefore, made to he, not merely in the injury done to a 
neighbor in depriving him of animal life, but eminently in its contempt 
of the image of God in man, and its interference with man's immortal 
interests and relations as a deathless spirit, accountable in the future 
state for the actions done in this. If this is allowed then suicide 
bears upon it these awful characteristics of murder, and is, there- 
fore, an infraction of the law of God as well as the killing of others. 
Indeed, we cannot well understand the principles of our religion 
without perceiving that, of all crimes, willful suicide ought most to 
be dreaded, because it places the criminal at once beyond the reach of 
mercy. 

Thirdly. If, then, no man has a right to dispose of his life by suicide, 
he has no right to hazard it in duels. The sinfulness of dueling is 
clearly implied in the Christian Scriptures. If I have received a per- 
sonal injury I am bound to forgive it, unless it is of such a nature as to 
require punishment by a due course of law ; and even then the offender 
is not to be punished in the spirit of revenge, but out of respect to the 
peace and welfare of society. If I have given offense I am bound to 
acknowledge it and to make reparation ; and if my adversary will not 
be satisfied, and insists upon my staking my life against his own, no 
considerations of reputation or disgrace, or of the good or ill opinion 
of men who form their judgments in utter disregard to the laws of 
God, can have any more weight in this than in any other case of immo- 
rality. 

The sin of dueling unites, in fact, the two crimes of suicide and mur- 
der. He who falls in a duel is guilty of suicide by voluntarily exposing 
himself to be slain ; and he by whom he falls is guilty of murder, as 
having shed man's blood without authority. Njay, the guilt of the two 



520 THE LOVE OF OUE NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

crimes unites in the same person. He who falls is a suicide in fact, and 
the murderer of another in intention. He by whom he falls is a mur- 
derer in fact, and so far a suicide as to have put his own life in imminent 
peril in contempt of the authority of God over him. He has contemned 
the image of God in man, both in himself and in his brother. And 
where duels are not fatal on either side, the whole guilt is chargeable 
upon the parties as a sin purposed in the heart ; though in that case 
there is space left for repentance. 

(2.) In property lawfully acquired every man has a natural right. 
Against individual aggression the right of property is secured by the 
Divine law, "Thou shalt not steal." It is also guarded by another 
injunction which carries the restraint up to the very principle of justice 
in the heart, " Thou shalt not covet ;" covetousness being that corrupt 
affection from which arises every injury done to men in their property. 
The Christian injunction, " Be content with such things as ye have," is 
another important security in the right of property, in regard to which 
right the fullest claims of justice would be met if these Scripture pre- 
cepts were carried out in their spirit and design. 

The right of property is of incalculable value to human beings. It 
enables them to secure happiness in a great measure proportionable to 
their skill, economy, and moral virtues. It multiplies objects of enjoy- 
ment, and lays a foundation for voluntary industry and enterprise. It 
is one of the main pillars of civilization. It leads to the perfection of 
all those arts and sciences which are connected with civilized life, and 
is the basis of all mechanical, mercantile, and manufacturing pursuits. 
The protection of men by the state in the enjoyment of the rights of 
property is only second, therefore, to their protection in the enjoyment 
of personal rights and liberties. 

The right of property is violated by theft, robbery, and fraud. Theft 
consists in taking property without the knowledge of the owner, and 
contrary to his will. Robbery consists in taking property from a person 
having lawful possession of it by violence, or by putting him in fear of 
some injury. Fraud is the injury of our neighbor by deception or arti- 
fice in commercial transactions. It is committed by inducing men to 
part with their property on false pretenses, by selling property for more 
than an equivalent, by representing articles as better than they really 
are, and by contracting debts without an intention or ability to pay 
them. It is also a species of fraud to induce persons to purchase what 
they do not need, or what they cannot procure without unwarrantable 
sacrifices. 

These are common forms of dishonesty, and are manifestly violations 
of justice. It is as criminal to obtain our neighbor's property on false 
pretenses, or by deception and artifice, as by stealing. All dishonesty 
is of the nature of stealing, and is forbidden in the eighth command- 
ment under this title. No commercial transaction is right which takes 



Chap. 7.] THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. 521 

away our neighbor's property without giving him a full equivalent for 
it. "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in 
weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and 
a just hin shall ye have." Lev. xix, 35, 36. And St. Paul says, " Let 
no man go beyond or defraud his brother in any matter ; because the 
Lord is the avenger of all such." 1 Thess. iv, 6. 

Nor are we to suppose that gambling, which consists in playing 
games of skill or chance for money, is any more consistent with the 
claims of justice than theft or fraud. The money which is lost by this 
means is an entire loss to the man who parts with it without any equiv- 
alent, and that which is gained is, therefore, a fraudulent gain to him 
who obtains it. One gains only by the other's loss. This is not the 
case in respect to the gains of any lawful business. The gains of the 
farmer, the mechanic, the merchant, and the banker are for services 
performed, which contribute to public prosperity by actual production ; 
but the gains of the gambler are for no services rendered, and the result 
of no production. Games of chance and skill, even without gambling, 
are objectionable. They waste time, produce a distaste for honest 
industry, and may lead to gambling in its vilest forms. 

Lotteries are a species of gambling, in which a large number of per- 
sons hazard small sums for the chance of obtaining greater ones. Lot- 
teries, like private games, produce nothing. They take from the many 
without any. equivalent, and give to the few. They concentrate the 
small amounts paid by multitudes into a few large sums, which are 
distributed by chance to a few of the contributors. The many 
are impoverished, while the few are enriched at their expense. Lot- 
teries, therefore, are as incompatible with justice as fraud in any other 
form. i 

(3.) Another natural right which every man may justly claim, and 
with which no individual authority ought to interfere, is liberty. This, 
in its general acceptation, consists in exemption from compulsion or 
restraint, and is applicable to both body and mind. A man may there- 
fore be said to enjoy liberty, when his volitions and actions are not con- 
trolled by any power beyond himself. This natural right comprehends 
liberty of person, the liberty of speech and of the press, and liberty 
of conscience. 

Liberty of person consists in exemption from the arbitrary will of our 
fellow-men, or in the privilege of doing as we please, so as not to tres- 
pass on the rights of others. This kind of liberty belongs to men in a 
social state, and can only be maintained by established laws. Hence, 
liberty of person, as it recognizes the rights of every member of society, 
and depends upon the restraints of law, is evidently included in what is 
called civil liberty. 

Liberty of person must be distinguished from what is sometimes 
called natural liberty. This is supposed to consist in a freedom to do 



522 THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

in all things as we please, without any regard to the interests of our 
fellow-men. To such liberty, however, we have no just right, either 
natural or acquired. The liberty to rob and to plunder may be the 
natural right of the wolf or the tiger ; but if mankind are by nature 
fitted and designed for the social state, which will hardly be denied, it 
cannot be the natural right of men. When, therefore, we speak of 
liberty as a natural right, we mean that kind of liberty which is in 
accordance with the rights of all men. 

The liberty of speech and of the press is the right of every citizen 
" freely to speak, write, and publish his sentiments " on all suitable sub- 
jects. The word press is here employed in its most comprehensive 
sense, denoting the general business of printing and publishing. Hence, 
the liberty of the press is the liberty to publish books and papers with- 
out restraint, except such as may be necessary to guard the rights of 
others. Men are not at liberty in all cases to speak or publish against 
others what they please. Without some restraint they might, by 
false reports or malicious publications, injure the reputation, the 
peace, or the property of their fellow-men. It is, therefore, proper, 
while the civil authority guarantees to every man freedom of speech 
and of the press, that it should hold him responsible for the abuse of 
this right. 

For a person to defame another by a false or malicious statement or 
report is either slander or libel. When the offense consists in words 
spoken, it is slander ; when in words written or printed, it is called libel. 
The latter, because it is generally more widely circulated than the former, 
and is, therefore, likely to do greater injury, is supposed to be the 
greater offense. 

Liberty of conscience, or religious liberty, consists in the unrestrained 
privilege of adopting and maintaining whatever religious opinions our 
judgment may approve, and of worshiping God according to the dictates 
of our conscience. History informs us of countries in which the people 
have been denied the enjoyment of this most sacred right. Even in 
some called Christian, thousands have been put to death for the expres- 
sion of their religious opinions. Liberty of conscience, however, is now 
more extensively tolerated than formerly. The laws of our own happy 
country secure to every religious denomination, "without discrim- 
ination or preference, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious 
worship." 

Thus we have seen that the proper administration of justice will 
secure to us the three great natural rights of man — life, property, 
and liberty. But these rights may be forfeited by crime. If a man 
commits murder he forfeits his life, and lawfully suffers death. If 
he is guilty of rebellion, his estate may be seized and confiscated. If 
he steals, he loses his right to liberty, and, is justly imprisoned. 
How far the natural rights of every man may be restrained by pub- 



Chap. 7.] THE LOVE OF OUE NEIGHBOR. 523 

lie authority is a point, however, on which different opinions have been 
held.* 

Before we dismiss this part of the subject it will be proper to remark, 

(4.) That justice requires, in all our transactions, a strict conformity 
to truth. The general law in regard to this is, " Thou shalt not bear 
false witness against thy neighbor." This precept forbids not only false 
oaths to deprive our neighbor of his life or of his rights, but all depart- 
ures from moral truth. Whatever is deposed as a truth which is false 
in fact, and tends to injure another in his body, goods, or influence, is 
against the spirit and letter of this law. The violation of promises, the 
disappointment of hopes which we may have created or cherished, pre- 
tending to be what we are not, or not to be what we really are, or any 
attempt whatever to make an impression upon the mind of another which 
we know to be contrary to reality and fact, is an infraction of the spirit 
of the law and of the claims of justice. 

The nature and character of the Divine being, the interests of indi- 
viduals and of communities, our own conscience, and the word of God, 
all demand that we should abstain from every species of falsehood. 
Solomon tells us that " lying lips are abomination to the Lord." 
Prov. xii, 22. " Wherefore," says the apostle, " putting away lying, 
speak every man truth with his neighbor." Eph. iv, 25. Again: "Lie 
not one to another." Col. iii, 9. It is expressly declared that " all liars 
shall have their portion in the lake which burneth with fire and brim- 
stone." Rev. xxi, 8. But, 

2. The law of love requires us also to exercise benevolence toward 
all men. — We are not only " to do justly," but " to love mercy" " All 
the law is fulfilled in one word," says the apostle, " even in this, Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Gal. v, 14. The terms mercy, love, 
kindness, and charity are often used in the Scriptures as synonymous, 
denoting that good- will toward all men which inclines us to do to others 
as we would that they should do to us. We shall employ them in this 
sense in the present discussion, including them all under the term benev- 
olence, which may be defined to be the love of mankind, accompanied 
with a desire to promote their happiness. The following remarks will 
more fully unfold its nature : 

(1.) Benevolence is not merely a negative affection, but brings forth 
rich and varied fruits. It produces a feeling of delight in the happiness 
of others, and thus destroys envy ; it is the source of sympathy and 
compassion; it opens its hand in liberality to supply the wants of the 
needy; it gives cheerfulness to every sendee undertaken in the cause 
of our fellow-men ; it resists the wrong which may be inflicted upon 
them, and it will run hazards of health and life for their sake. Benev- 
olence has special respect to the spiritual interests and salvation of men. 
It instructs, persuades, and reproves the ignorant and vicious ; it counsels 
* See note at the end of the volume, page 66-i. 



524 THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

the simple ; it comforts the doubting and perplexed ; and it rejoices in 
those gifts and graces of others by which society may be enlightened 
and purified. 

(2.) True Christian benevolence is disinterested: "Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself." We do not say that it implies an absence of 
all reference to our own good. A total disregard of our own gratifica- 
tion is obviously impossible ; for such a state of feeling would contra- 
dict the most active and efficient principles of human nature. But 
though, strictly and philosophically speaking, benevolence may not 
divest us of all reference to our own interest, yet it implies those feel- 
ings which render our happiness dependent on promoting the happiness' 
of others. To be kind to men simply because they are kind to us, or 
to alleviate their wants merely because it contributes to our own inter- 
est, is not benevolence, but selfishness. " If ye love them which love 
you," says our Lord, " what thank have ye ? for sinners also love 
those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to 
you, what thank have ye ? for sinners also do even the same." Luke 
vi, 32, 33. 

(3.) True benevolence is unrestricted in its objects. Disdaining the 
dictates of a narrow and calculating policy, it inclines us, to the utmost 
of our ability, to promote the happiness of all men. The command is, 
" Thou shalt love thy neighbor." But who is my neighbor ? Doubt- 
less every human being. The charity of the Gospel, therefore, requires 
us to love every human being, whether he is righteous or unrighteous, 
whether he is a friend or an enemy. It is this charity alone that can 
induce a compliance with the Divine injunction, " Love your enemies, 
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for 
them which despitefully use you and persecute you." Matt, v, 44. 
Unrestricted by the ties of consanguinity, the habits of association, cir- 
cumstances of locality, or natural sympathy, Christian charity extends 
its benignant wishes to our entire race. Dissolving the fetters of secta- 
rian bigotry, overleaping the boundaries of political proscription, and 
renouncing the system of a selfish reciprocity, its aspirations are bounded 
only by the residence of man. 

(4.) Benevolence is self-sacrificing and laborious. The zeal of apos- 
tles, the patience of martyrs, the travels and labors of evangelists in the 
first ages, were all animated by this affection ; and the earnestness of 
Gospel ministers in all ages, and the labors of private Christians for the 
benefit of the souls of men, with the operations of those voluntary asso- 
ciations which send forth missionaries to the heathen, or distribute 
Bibles and tracts, or conduct schools, are all its visible expressions before 
the world. Except in connection with the religion of the heart, wrought 
and maintained there by the acknowledged influences of the Holy Spirit, 
the love of mankind has never exhibited itself under such views and 
acts as those to which we have just referred. It has never been found 



Chap. 7.] THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. 525 

in persons naturally selfish and obdurate ; it has never disposed men to 
make great and painful sacrifices for others ; it has never sympathized 
with spiritual wretchedness ; it has never been called forth into its high- 
est exercises by considerations drawn from the immortal relations of man 
to eternity ; it has never originated large plans for the illumination and 
moral culture of society ; nor has it ever fixed upon the grand object 
to which Christian benevolence is now bending the hearts, the inter- 
ests, and the hopes of the universal Church, the conversion of the 
world. 

Unlike circles formed upon the surface of the water, which die away 
as they recede from the center of their movement, true benevolence 
acquires strength as the sphere of its operation is enlarged. "Many 
waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it." " Charity," 
says the apostle, "never faileth." Possessing an energy which grows 
with the lapse of time, it operates, even in the agonies of death, with 
increasing vigor. This attribute of charity was illustriously exempli- 
fied in the conduct of the primitive Christians. They hazarded life and 
every earthly consideration to promote the happiness of their fellow- 
men. And to many Christian philanthropists of the present day this 
remark is also applicable. Amid the sufferings of burning climes, the 
ice and snows of polar regions, and the most savage and inhospitable 
portions of the earth, they are triumphing over human perversity, and 
erecting monuments of Christian benevolence which shall endure forever. 
Tne plains of India, once whitened with the bones df deluded victims, 
and the cold and sterile mountains of Greenland and Labrador, in con- 
sequence of efforts of this description, now sustain a people who " shall 
be accounted to the Lord for a generation." 

(5.) True benevolence manifests itself in acts of practical mercy and 
liberality to the needy and the miserable. This fruit of benevolence is 
more particularly denominated charity, the field for the exercise of 
which is very extensive. It admits of three general divisions : state 
charity, Church charity, and individual charity. State charity embraces 
the building and supporting of institutions for the instruction of the 
mute and the blind, and for the cure and care of the insane, and provision 
for the education of poor children, and for the relief of the poor and 
infirm generally. . The field for the exercise of Church charity is the 
care and instruction of its own poor, who should never become a charge 
to other institutions where the Church to which they belong has the 
most moderate ability to afford them support. Individual or private 
charity is exercised toward all those objects of commiseration which 
are not duly provided for by the state or the Church. 

The general law in regard to this branch of benevolence is express 
and unequivocal. " He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that 
hath none ; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." Luke iii, 1 1 . 
" As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all meu, espe- 



526 THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

cially unto them who are of the household of faith." Gal. vi, 10. " But 
to do good, and to communicate, forget not ; for with such sacrifices 
God is well pleased." Heb. xiii, 16. A most important and influential 
principle, to be found in no mere system of ethics, is also drawn from 
that relation in which we all stand to God, and on which we must be 
judged at the last day. We are " stewards of the manifold grace of 
God." "We are mere " servants," to whom the great Master has com- 
mitted his " goods," to be used according to his directions. We have 
nothing, therefore, of our own ; no right in property, except under the 
conditions on which it is committed to us ; and we must give an account 
for our use of it according to these conditions. 

As to the quantum of our exertions in doing good to others, it is to 
be determined by a rule of proportion, as several Scriptures clearly indi- 
cate. " For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much 
required." Luke xii, 48. u For if there be first a willing mind, it is 
accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he 
hath not." 2 Cor. viii, 12. It is a further rule, that our charities should 
be both cheerful and abundant. The language of St. Paul to his Corinth- 
ian brethren is, " See that ye abound in this grace also." 2 Cor. viii, 7. 
And again, " Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let 
him give ; not grudgingly, or of necessity ; for God loveth a cheerful 
giver." 2 Cor. ix, 7. 

The entire neglect to exercise this practical benevolence is highly 
criminal. It involves a degree of selfishness and inhumanity which' is 
entirely inconsistent with the character of a good man. " Whoso hath 
this world's goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his 
bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him ?" 
1 John iii, 17. For an uncharitable man, therefore, to profess the relig- 
ion of Christ, is the greatest inconsistency. A religion requiring equal 
love to our neighbor must, in a world like ours of suffering and sorrow, 
be a religion of active benevolence. Nor would there be any advantage 
in being exempt from the claims of charity. Its exercise is no less a 
benefit to the giver than to the receiver. " He that hath pity upon the 
poor lendeth unto the Lord ; and that which he hath given will he pay 
him again." Prov. xix, 1 7. That " it is more blessed to give than to 
receive," is an inspired sentiment with which the experience of every 
truly benevolent man accords. The compassionate heart finds not only 
relief, but a real luxury in the exercise of charity. Nothing can be less 
a task, or more a privilege. 



Chap. 8.] DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 527 



CHAPTER VIII. 

DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 

Having viewed the love of our neighbor in its general character, as a 
principle of moral action, we come now to consider it in its application 
to particular duties. The particular duties which we owe to our fellow- 
creatures arise from the various modifications of the social state. These 
modifications, as recognized in the Scriptures, are the domestic and the 
political. 

I. Domestic Relations. 

That modification of the social state which we call domestic, has 
respect to those relations which grow out of the existence of families, 
and which are, therefore, called domestic relations. They are the con- 
jugal, the parental, the filial, and the servile relations. 

1. The conjugal relation. — This arises out of the institution of mar- 
riage ; which is the conjunction of one man and one woman, united by 
their free vows in a bond made by the Divine law indissoluble, except 
by death or by adultery. That the conjugal relation is agreeable to 
the will of God is evident from the existence of the sexes, the feelings 
of human nature, and the requirements of the Scriptures. The duties 
which arise from this relation are fidelity and mutual affection. 

(1.) It demands fidelity. This duty is urged in the Holy Scriptures 
with uncommon earnestness. In the dispensation of the moral law, 
amid thunderings and lightnings, and awful manifestations of Divine 
power, God uttered the command, " Thou shalt not commit adultery." 
This crime is uniformly treated in the Scriptures as one of the most 
atrocious of human vices. " The man," says God, " that committeth 
adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall 
surely be put to death." Lev. xx, 10. Moreover, according to our 
Lord's exposition of the spirit of the law, it forbids the indulgence even 
of lustful desires ; and thus the purity of the heart is placed under the 
guardianship of that hallowed fear which his authority inspires. 

That the conjugal relation involves perpetual and inviolable obliga- 
tions to fidelity, is also evident from our Lord's reply to the question 
of the Pharisees respecting the lawfulness of divorce. " Have ye not 
read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and 
female ; and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, 
and shall cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall be one flesh ? Where- 
fore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath 
joined together, let no man put asunder." Matt, xix, 4-6. From this 



523 DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

and similar passages it is evident, that the man and the woman who 
enter into the marriage relation become one, never to be separated in 
feeling, in interest, or in pursuits, till death dissolves the nuptial contract. 
Hence this relation demands the duty, 

(2.) Of mutual affection. — Those who are united in holy wedlock 
should have but one feeling, one desire, one effort ; and that should have 
for its object the reciprocation of unfeigned love. To the husband his 
wife should be his light, his joy, and the object of his most.tender solici- 
tude ; and to the wife her husband should be her solace, her glory, and 
the object of her unceasing reverence and affection. " Wives," says the 
apostle, " submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of 
the Church." To husbands his command is, " Love your wives, even 
as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it." And then he 
adds, " Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as 
himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." Eph. 
V, 22, 23, 25, 33. 

2. The parental relation. — From this arise the duties of parents in 
regard to their children. In these duties are comprehended love, 
support, government, education, and a comfortable settlement in life. 

(1 .) Love. — This, though a natural instinct, is yet to be cultivated by 
Christians as a duty, which may be done by frequent meditation upon 
all those important and interesting relations in which Christianity has 
placed them and their offspring. 

(2.) Support. — The duty of support and care, even under the most 
trying circumstances, is imperative upon parents. For, though this is 
not directly enjoined in so many words, yet it is supposed necessarily 
to follow from true parental love. To deny either support or care to 
infants would destroy them, and thus the unnatural parent would be 
involved in the crime of murder. The duty of giving to children an 
adequate support is a dictate of humanity, of mercy, and of justice. 
" If any provide not for his own," says the apostle, " and especially for 
those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an 
infidel." 1 Tim. v, 8. The kind of support due to children depends 
upon the circumstances and abilities of the parents. As in providing 
for themselves, so in providing for their children their obligations are 
proportionable to their means. The poor discharge their duty by 
giving their children the best and most appropriate support they can, 
and the rich only discharge theirs by doing the same. 

(3.) Government. — This is another great branch of parental duty, in 
which both the parents are bound cordially to unite. Like all other 
kinds of government appointed by God, the end is the good of those 
subject to it; and it, therefore, excludes all caprice, vexation, and 
tyranny. In the case of parents it is eminently a government of love ; 
and, therefore, although it includes strictness, it necessarily excludes 



Chap. 8.] DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 529 

severity. The mild and benevolent character of our holy religion dis- 
plays itself here, as in every other instance where the heat of temper, 
the possession of power, or the ebullitions of passion might be turned 
against the weak and unprotected. "And ye fathers, provoke not your 
children to wrath ; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of 
the Lord." Ephes. vi, 4. Again : " Fathers, provoke not your children 
to anger, lest they be discouraged." Col. iii, 21. 

But though the parental government is founded upon kindness, and 
can never be separated from it when rightly understood and exercised, 
yet it is government, and must be faithfully discharged. It requires, as 
its basis, a complete and just system of family laws. These laws ought 
to be few and simple, and to be such, and such only, as are necessary to 
the peace and comfort of the family and of each individual. To adopt 
unnecessary rules is as great a fault as to exclude those which are neces- 
sary. A careful distinction should be made between the appropriate 
sphere of family government and that of advice. Many actions may 
properly be matters of advice which it would not be expedient to 
enforce. It is, therefore, an error for parents to command when they 
ought only to advise, or only to advise when they ought to command. 

Family government may be lawfully enforced by the hope of reward 
and the fear of punishment. The proper reward of obedience is the 
approbation of the parents. To withhold this from obedient children 
is both wrong and injurious. It is a deviation from the plan of the 
Divine government, and consequently from that of infinite wisdom and 
goodness. A word of approbation, or even a kind look, is often of great 
use to a child in strengthening its principles of obedience, and is often 
an ample reward for arduous services. 

The proper punishments of disobedience in children are, disapproba- 
tion and chastisement with the rod. Disapprobation may be expressed 
by rebuke or admonition, but not by angry scolding. Fretfulness and 
scolding are a great disadvantage to family government, and are incom- 
patible with its efficient administration. And, besides, they render per- 
sons odious and contemptible, and are entirely destructive of all parental 
dignity. They are, therefore, improper modes of expressing displeasure. 

The ultimate resort in family government is to " the rod of correc- 
tion " when other means are ineffectual. This is explicitly sanctioned 
in the Scriptures,* and is fully justified by the general experience of 
mankind. Yet it may be laid down as a certain principle that where 
the authority of a parent is exercised with constancy and discretion, 
and enforced by gravity, kindness, and a suitable dignity of character, 
this kind of punishment will seldom be found necessary. Nor will it 
need often to be repeated if the steady resolution of the parent to inflict 
it when it is demanded by the case is once known to the child. 

(4.) Education. — This, in the full meaning of the term, implies that 
* See Prov. x, 13; xiii, 24: xxii, 15 ; and xxiii, 13 r 14. 
34 



530 DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

system of culture, whether public or private, which elicits and improves 
the capabilities of human nature ; which calls into salutary exercise and 
puts under proper discipline the intellectual, the moral, and the animal 
faculties of man ; and which imparts to him power for the effective and 
graceful accomplishment of the several duties which, in the order of 
Divine Providence, he may be called to perform. Anything less than 
this, however imposing in its pretensions, falls short of an adequate and 
finished education. But especially should parents be attentive to the 
religious training of their children. If they would see them prosper in 
the present life, if they would wish them to close their earthly career 
under the blessings of their country and their God, and finally to enjoy 
the felicity of heaven, they should " bring them up in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord." " Train up a child," says Solomon, " in the 
way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." 
Prov. xxii, 6. 

(5.) Another duty of parents is the comfortable settlement of their 
children in the world as far as their ability extends. This includes the 
discreet choosing of a calling, by which their children may " provide 
things honest in the sight of all men ;" taking special care, however, 
that their moral safety shall be consulted in the choice — a consideration 
which too many disregard under the influence of carelessness or a vain 
ambition. It is taught, both by nature and by our religion, that parents 
should lay up for their children. But this duty must not interfere with 
the rational comforts of a parent according to his rank in life, nor with 
those charities which Christianity requires. 

3. The filial relation. — This comprehends the duties of children — 
a branch of Christian morality which receives both illustration and 
authority in a very remarkable and peculiar manner from the holy 
Scriptures. "Honor thy father and thy mother," is a precept which 
was written at first by the finger of God, and is, as the apostle declares, 
"the first commandment with promise," or to which a promise is 
annexed. The meaning of the term honor is comprehensive, and 
imports love, reverence, and obedience. 

(1.) Love. — This is founded upon esteem and reverence, and com- 
prises gratitude also, no small degree of which is obligatory upon every 
child for the unwearied cares, labors, and kindness of parental affection. 
In the few instances in which esteem for a parent can have but little 
place, gratitude, at least, ought to remain; nor can any case arise in 
which the obligation of filial love can be canceled. 

(2.) Reverence. — This consists in that honorable esteem of parents 
which children ought to cherish in their hearts, and from which spring 
on the one hand the desire to please, and on the other the fear to offend. 
The fear of a child, however, is opposed to the fear of a slave. The 
latter has respect chiefly to the punishment which may be inflicted ; but 
the former, being mixed with love and the desire to be loved, has respect 



Chap. 8.] DUTIES TO OUK NEIGHBOR. 531 

to the offense which may be taken by a parent, his grief, and his dis- 
pleasure. Hence the fear of God, as a grace of the Spirit in the regen- 
erate, is compared to the fear of children. 

This reverential regard due to parents has its external expression in 
all honor and civility, whether in words or actions. The behavior is 
to be submissive, and the speech respectful. Reproof is to be borne 
with meekness, and the impatience of parents sustained in silence. 
Children are bound to close their eyes as much as possible upon the 
failings and infirmities of the authors of their being, and always to 
speak of them in terms of respect. In the duty of honoring parents is 
also included their support when in necessity. This is clearly to be 
inferred from the teaching of our Lord. (Matt, xv, 4-6.) 

(3.) Obedience. — The Divine injunction is, " Children, obey your par- 
ents in all things ; for this is well-pleasing unto the Lord." Col. iii, 20. 
This obedience is to be universal, with only one restriction, and that 
respects the conscience, when children are of an age to judge for them- 
selves. The apostle therefore says, " Children, obey your parents in the 
Lord" Eph. vi, 1. That the phrase " in the Lord " limits the obedience 
of children to what is lawful is clear from the words of our Lord, " He 
that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." Matt, 
x, 37. In all lawful things, however, the rule is absolute; and the 
obedience of children, like that which we owe to God, ought to be 
cheerful and unwearied. Should parental injunctions chance to cross 
their inclinations, this will be no excuse for hesitancy, much less for 
refusal. 

4. The servile relation. — This relation, which in one form or other 
seems to be unavoidable in the social state, involves the reciprocal 
duties of servants and masters — duties which are prescribed in the 
New Testament with all necessary explicitness. Let us, then, con- 
sider, 

(l.) The duties of servants. — The relation of masters and servants is 
nearly allied to that of parents and children, though differing from it in 
several circumstances ; and as government in masters, as well as in parents, 
is an appointment of God, it is therefore to be duly respected. Hence 
servants are required, 1. To fear their masters. To them the inspired 
injunction is, " Be obedient to them that are your masters, with fear 
and trembling." Eph. vi, 5. And again: " Be subject to your masters 
with all fear." 1 Pet. ii, 18. 2. To honor them. "Let as many serv- 
ants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor." 
1 Tim. vi, 1. This direction enjoins upon servants, not only the culti- 
vation of respect for their masters, but also propriety of external 
demeanor toward them. 3. To obey them. "Servants, be obedient to 
them that are your masters." Again : " Servants, obey in all things, 
your masters according to the flesh ; not with eye-service, as men-pleas- 
ers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God. And whatsoever ye do, 



532 DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men." Col. iii, 22, 23. The 
obedience of servants, like that of children, is obligatory only in things 
that are lawful. But with respect to all lawful commands, they are 
required to obey their masters universally, " in all things ;" faithfully, 
" not with eye-service ;" conscientiously, " fearing God ;" and cheer- 
fully, doing " it heartily," with alacrity and good feeling. 

The duties of servants, thus briefly stated, might easily be shown to 
comprehend every particular which can be justly required of persons in 
this station ; and the whole is enforced by a sanction which could have 
no place but in a revelation from God : " Knowing that whatsoever good 
thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he 
be bond or free." Eph. vi, 8. Thus we see that even the common 
duties of servants, when properly performed, are by Christianity made 
rewardable actions. But we must consider, 

(2.) The duties of masters. After the apostle lays down the duties 
of servants, as above described, he then adds, " And ye masters, do the 
same things unto them ;" that is, act toward them upon the same equi- 
table, conscientious, and benevolent principles as you exact from them. 
But again he says, " Masters, give unto your servants that which is just 
and equal." Col. iv, 1. The terms just and equal, though of near affin- 
ity, have somewhat different signification. To give that which is just 
to a servant is to deal with him according to contract ; but to give 
him what is equal is to render him a full compensation for his serv- 
ice, though it should be more than he could demand on legal prin- 
ciples. 

Equity here, however, may have respect particularly to that import- 
ant rule which obliges us to do to others what we would, in similar cir- 
cumstances, have them do to us. This rule of equity has a large range 
in the treatment of servants. It excludes all arbitrary and tyrannical 
government ; it teaches masters to respect the strength and capacity of 
their servants ; it represses rage and passion, contumely and insult ; and 
it directs that their labor shall not be so extended as to deprive them 
of proper time for rest, for recreation, and for attendance upon the 
worship of God. 

Moreover, when the apostle enjoins it on masters to " forbear threat- 
ening," he inculcates the treatment of servants with Christian kindness 
as well as with justice and equity. He then enforces these duties by two 
weighty considerations. The first is, that masters are held accountable 
to God for the manner in which they treat their servants — "knowing 
that your Master also is in heaven." The second is, that in the sight of 
God masters and servants are equal — " neither is there respect of per- 
sons with him." 

II. Political Relations. 

That modification of the social state which we call political has 
respect to those relations which grow out of the existence of a commu- 



Chap. 8.] DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 533 

nity under some form of civil government, and hence they are called 
political relations. 

In all civilized countries the people live under government and laws, 
but their several modes and forms of government are very different ; 
that is, the power or authority to govern is not always placed in the 
same class of persons, nor exercised in the same manner. There are 
three distinct forms of civil government, namely, the monarchical, the 
aristocratical, and the republican. 

A monarchical government is one in which the supreme power is 
lodged in the hands of a single person. A government in which all 
power resides in one person is called an absolute monarchy ; but if the 
power of the monarch is restrained by fundamental laws, or by some 
other power, it is a limited monarchy. 

An aristocratical government is one in which the whole supreme 
power is vested in a few persons of rank and wealth. When the 
supreme power is exercised by a very small number the government is 
called an oligarch]/, which term, however, is usually applied to a cor- 
rupted form of aristocracy. 

A republican government is one in which the supreme power is lodged 
in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise 
the powers of legislation by their representatives. Such is the govern- 
ment of the United States of America. 

That God intended men to live in society can hardly be doubted. 
The very laws which he has given them, prescribing their relative 
duties, assume the permanent existence of social relations, and, there- 
fore, place them under regulation; and from this fact the Divine 
appointment of government flows as a necessary consequence. A society 
cannot exist without rules or laws, and it therefore follows that such 
laws must be upheld by enforcement. Hence an executive power in 
some form must arise to guard, to judge, to reward, to punish. For, 
if laws were not executed they would become a dead-letter, and, there- 
fore, be the same as none at all. 

But we are not left to mere inference. In the first ages of the world 
government was paternal, and the power of government was vested in 
parents by the express appointment of God. Among the Jews rulers, 
judges, and kings were also appointed by God himself; and as for all 
other nations the New Testament expressly declares that " the powers 
which be are ordained of God." The origin of power is not, therefore, 
from man, but from God ; and hence it is not left to men as a matter of 
choice whether they will be governed or not. 

But though government is of Divine authority, it appears to be left 
to men to judge in what form its purposes may, in certain circumstan- 
ces, be most effectually accomplished, since no direction is given on this 
subject in the Scriptures. It is, therefore, the right of a majority of the 
people concerned to decide what that form shall be. 



534: DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

Civil government necessarily implies two parties, the governing and 
the governed ; and involves, therefore, reciprocal duties correspondent 
to this relation. We will direct our attention, 

1. To the duties of those who govern. — In all well-constructed govern- 
ments the civil power is divided into three departments, which are 
separated from one another and administered by different persons. 
These are denominated the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. 
The legislative department is that by which the laws of the state are 
made ; the judicial, that which declares and applies them ; and the 
executive, that which executes them. 

The duties of the sovereign power, whatever the form of government 
may be, are the enactment of just and equal laws, — the mild but impar- 
tial execution of those laws, the protection and sustenance of the poor 
and helpless, the maintenance of domestic peace, and, as far as the 
interests of the community will allow, of peace with all nations; the 
faithful observance of all treaties, an incessant application to the cares 
of government, without exacting more tribute from the people than is 
necessary for the real wants of the state, and the honorable mainte- 
nance of its officers, the appointment of inferior magistrates of probity 
and fitness, with a diligent and strict oversight of them ; and finally, the 
encouragement of industry, learning, morality, and the religion of the 
Holy Scriptures. 

These obligations are either plainly expressed, or clearly implied in 
such passages as the following : " The God of Israel said, the Rock of 
Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the 
fear of God." 2 Sam. xxiii, 3. " Ye shall do no unrighteousness in 
judgment ; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the 
person of the mighty ; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neigh- 
bor." Lev. xix, 15. "Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the peo- 
ple able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness ; and 
place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, 
rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens ; and let them judge the people at all 
seasons." Exod. xviii, 21, 22. 

The New Testament directions, though expressed generally, are 
equally comprehensive; and it is worthy of remark, that while they 
assert the Divine ordination of " the powers that be," they explicitly 
mark out for what ends they were thus appointed, and allow, therefore, 
of no plea of Divine right in rulers for anything contrary to them. " For 
rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then 
not be afraid of the power ? do that which is good and thou shalt have 
praise of the same ; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. 
But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth not the 
sword in vain ; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute 
wrath upon him that doeth evil." Rom. xiii, 3, 4. Submit yourselves 
to every ordinance of man for the Lord^s sake ; whether it be to the 



Chap. 8.] DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 535 

king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him 
for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do 
well:' 1 Peter ii, 13, 14. 

2. The duties of the governed. — In the preceding passages, which 
state the legitimate ends of government, the duties of subjects are par- 
tially anticipated ; but they are capable of a fuller enumeration. These 
duties are, 

(1.) Patriotism, or the love of our country. — This species of love is 
analogous to that of children toward the family. The obligation of 
citizens to love their country arise from their relations to it, as the 
objects of its protection, and the subjects of numerous distinguished 
benefits. Our country is one of the most important and influential 
agents in the promotion of our prosperity and happiness. Its benefiical 
agency commences with the protection of our infancy, and continues, in 
one unremitting stream of benefits, till the latest period of life. It pro- 
tects our persons and our property. It adopts measures for the encour- 
agement of industry and enterprise, and for the widest possible diffusion 
of wealth, learning, virtue, and religion. In respect to these and other 
blessings our country is our parent and friend, and as such it ought to 
be regarded and loved. Especially are citizens of the United States 
under obligations to love their country. The blessings which it confers 
upon them are immense and innumerable ; and these benefits demand a 
return of gratitude and love proportionable to their number and mag- 
nitude. 

(2.) Obedience to civil laws. — These are the rules of action which are 
prescribed by the proper authority of the state, and which are supposed 
to have for their end the protection of life, liberty, and property, the 
encouragement of industry and enterprise, and the promotion of general 
prosperity and happiness. The duty of obedience to all such laws is 
explicitly enjoined in the Scriptures. " Let every soul," says St. Paul, 
" be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of 
God. The powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever, there- 
fore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they 
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Rom. xiii, 1, 2. 
The language of Peter is, " Submit yourselves to every ordinance 
of man for the Lord's sake ; whether it be to the king, as supreme, 
or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punish- 
ment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well." 1 Peter 
ii, 13, 14. 

In these passages the duty of obedience to civil authority is clearly 
and strongly stated, and is therefore a matter of Divine injunction. Its 
necessity, however, is equally obvious from the nature of the case. For, 
without obedience to civil law, there could be no civil government ; and 
without civil government, we could enjoy none of the blessings of civil- 
ized life. But this law of obedience and submission to " the powers 



536 DUTIES TO OUE NEIGHBOR. [Book V. 

that be," though general and indispensable, has legitimate exceptions. 
When civil laws command what God forbids, or forbid what he com- 
mands, they are not obligatory. When a higher and a lower authority 
have legitimate jurisdiction, they are both to be respected as far as prac- 
ticable. But where obedience to both is impossible from their com- 
manding opposite and inconsistent actions, the higher authority alone is 
to be respected. God's authority is the highest in the universe ; and 
his laws are, therefore, to be obeyed in all cases, human laws to 
the contrary notwithstanding. This principle is fully established by 
inspired authority when the apostles declare, "We ought to obey 
God rather than men.'''' Acts v, 29. It is also exemplified in the case of 
Daniel and his three companions, and in that of the early Christian 
martyrs. 

(3.) Pecuniary supplies for the necessities of government. — As no 
civil government can be conducted without considerable expense, it 
becomes the duty of citizens, for whose benefit government exists, to con- 
tribute what is necessary for its successful operation. Justice demands 
that all the necessary agents of government should be liberally rewarded 
for their faithful services. "For," says the apostle, "for this cause 
pay you tribute also ; for they are God's ministers, attending con- 
tinually upon this very thing. Render, therefore, to all their dues ; 
tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom to whom custom." Rom. 
xiii, 6, 7. 

(4.) Respect and reverence for rulers. — " It is written, Thou shalt not 
speak evil of the ruler of thy people." Acts xxiii, 5. " Curse not the 
king," says Solomon, " no, not in thy thought." Eccl. x, 20. St. Paul 
teaches us that in rendering to all their dues we must render " fear to 
whom fear " is due ; " honor to whom honor." St. Jude lays it down 
as characteristic of the ungodly that they " despise dominion, and speak 
evil of dignities." Rulers are therefore to be duly honored, both by 
external marks of respect and by being maintained in dignity. Their 
actions are to be judged of with candor and charity ; and when ques- 
tioned or blamed this is to be done with moderation, and not with invec- 
tive or ridicule — a mode of speaking evil of dignities which grossly 
offends against the Christian rule. 

(5.) Prayer for those in authority and for our country in general. — 
"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, inter- 
cessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men ; for kings, and for 
all that are in authority ; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, 
in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the 
sight of God our Saviour." 1 Tim. ii, 1-3. 

This holy and salutary practice is founded upon a recognition of the 
fact that government is the ordinance of God ; and also, that the exist- 
ing powers in every place are God's ministers. It supposes that all pub- 
lic affairs are under the Divine control ; it reminds men of the arduous 



Chap. 8.] DUTIES TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 537 

duties and responsibilities of governors ; it prompts a benevolent, grate- 
ful, and respectful feeling toward them; and it is a powerful guard 
against a factious and seditious spirit. These are so evidently the prin- 
ciples and tendencies of this sacred custom that when prayer has been 
used, as it sometimes has, to convey the feelings of a malignant, factious, 
or light spirit, every well-disposed mind must have been shocked at so 
profane a mockery. 



538 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. [Book VI. 



BOOK VI. 

THE INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

Since Christ has established a Church in the world, by means of which 
revealed truth is to be maintained, and the Gospel preached " to every 
creature ;" and since he has ordained that certain religious rites shall be 
observed by all who become members of his Church, it is necessary that 
we should inquire into the nature of this religious organization, and of 
the peculiar rites by which it is distinguished. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 



The Church of Christ, in its largest sense, consists of all who have been 
baptized in the name of Christ, and have thereby made a public pro- 
fession of faith in his Divine mission, and in all the doctrines of the Gos- 
pel. In a stricter sense it consists of those who are vitally united to 
Christ as members of his body, and who, being thus imbued with spir- 
itual life, walk no longer " after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Taken 
in either view it is a visible society, bound to observe the laws of Christ, 
its only Head and Lord. 

Visible fellowship with this Church is the duty of all who profess 
faith in Christ; for in this in part consists that confession of Christ 
before men on which so much stress is laid in the discourses of our 
Lord. It is obligatory on all who are convinced of the truth of Chris- 
tianity to be baptized, and upon all thus baptized frequently to partake 
of the Lord's Supper, in order to testify their continued faith in Christ 
as the Redeemer of the world by his sufferings and death ; both of which 
suppose union with the Church. 

The ends of this fellowship or association are, to proclaim our faith in 
the doctrines of Christ as being Divine in their origin and necessary to 
salvation ; to offer public prayers and thanksgivings to God through 



Chap. 1.] THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 539 

Christ as the only Mediator; to hear God's word expounded and 
enforced ; and to place ourselves under that discipline which consists in 
the enforcement of the laws of Christ upon the members, not merely by 
general exhortation, but by kind oversight and personal injunction and 
admonition of its ministers. All these flow from the original obligation 
to avow our faith in Christ and our love to him. 

The Church in Christ, then, being a visible and permanent society, 
bound to observe certain rites and certain rules, the existence of gov- 
ernment in it is necessarily supposed. All religious rites suppose order, 
all order direction and control, and these a directing and control- 
ling power. Again, all laws are nugatory without enforcement in the 
present mixed and imperfect state of society ; and all enforcement of 
law supposes an executive. Thus government follows necessarily from 
the very nature of the institution of the Christian Church. And since 
this institution has the authority of Christ and his apostles, it is not to 
be supposed that they left its government unprovided for ; and if they 
have in fact made such a provision, it is no more a matter of mere 
option with Christians whether they will be subject to government in 
the Church, than it is optional with them to confess Christ by becoming 
its members. 

In this chapter there are four points to be examined: 1. The nature 
of this government ; 2. The persons to whom it is committed; 3. The 
share which the body of the people have in their own government ; and, 
4. The ends to which Church authority is legitimately directed. 

I. The Nature or Church Government. 

As to the nature of Church government it is wholly spiritual. " My 
kingdom," says Christ, " is not of this world." This characteristic of 
the government of the Church is manifest, 

1. From the fact that it is concerned only with spiritual objects. — 
The Church is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love 
for the personal edification of its members in holiness, and for the relig- 
ious benefit of the world. It cannot employ force to compel men into 
its pale, for the only door of the Church is faith, to which there can be 
no compulsion. He who believes in Christ, and confesses him in the 
ordinance of baptism, becomes a member of the Church according to its 
original constitution. But that the government of the Church is purely 
of a spiritual nature is further evident, 

2. From the nature of its punitive discipline. — It cannot inflict pains 
and penalties upon the disobedient and refractory like civil govern- 
ments, for the only punitive discipline authorized in the New Testa- 
ment is comprised in admonition, reproof, sharp rebukes, and, finally, 
excision from the society. The last will be better understood if we con- 
sider the special relations in which true Christians stand to each other, 
and the duties resulting from them. They are members of one body, 
and are, therefore, bound to tenderness and sympathy. They are the 



540 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. [Book VI. 

conjoint instructors of others, and are, therefore, to strive to be of "one 
judgment." They are brethren, and they are bound to love one another 
as such ; that is, with an affection more special than that general good- 
will which they are commanded to bear to all mankind. They are, 
therefore, to seek the intimacy of friendly society among themselves, 
and, except in the ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they are 
bound to keep themselves separate from the world. They are enjoined 
to do good to all men, but " specially to them that are of the household 
of faith." They are forbidden " to eat " at the Lord's table with those 
who dishonor their Christian profession by immoral conduct. 

With these relations of Christians to one another and to the world, 
and their correspondent duties before our minds, we may easily inter- 
pret the nature of that extreme discipline which is vested in the Church. 
Persons who will not hear the Church are to be held as heathen men 
and publicans, as those who are not members of it ; that is, they are to 
be separated from it, and to be regarded as of the world. But still, 
like heathen men and publicans, they are to be the objects of pity and 
general benevolence. 

Nor is this extreme discipline to be hastily inflicted before a? " first 
and second admonition," nor before attempts are made to restore the 
brother who may "be overtaken in a fault;" and when the "wicked 
person " is " put away," still the door is to be kept open for his recep- 
tion again upon repentance. The true excommunication of the Chris- 
tian Church is, therefore, a merciful and considerate separation of an 
incorrigible offender from the body of Christians without any infliction 
of civil pains or penalties.* 

II. The persons to whom the government op the Church is 

COMMITTED. 

In regard to this point it is necessary to consider the composition of 
the primitive Church as stated in the ]STew Testament. Here it is evi- 
dent that the great body of believers comprehended both officers and 
private members, and that the government of the Church mainly 
devolved upon the former. Let us then consider, 

1, The distinctive offices to which men were appointed in the primitive 
Church. — Of these we have full information in Ephesians iv, 11, 12: 
" And he gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangel- 
ists ; and some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, 
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." 

Of these the office of apostle is allowed by all to have been confined 
to those who were immediately commissioned by Christ to witness the 
fact of his miracles and of his resurrection from the dead, and to reveal 
the complete system of Christian doctrine and duty, confirming their 
extraordinary mission by miracles wrought by themselves. 

If by prophets we are to understand persons who foretold future 
* See 1 Cor. v, 5, 11 ; 2 Thess. iii, 6. 



Chap. 1.] THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 541 

events, then the office was, from its very nature, extraordinary, and the 
gift of prophecy has passed away with the other miraculous endow- 
ments of the first age of Christianity. If, with others, we understand 
that these prophets were extraordinary teachers, raised up until the 
Churches were settled under permanent qualified instructors, still the 
office was temporary. 

The evangelists are generally understood to be assistants of the apos- 
tles, who acted under their especial authority and direction. Of this 
number were Timothy and Titus ; and as the Apostle Paul directed 
them to ordain bishops or presbyters in the several Churches, but gave 
them no authority to ordain successors to themselves in their particular 
office as evangelists, it is clear that the evangelists must also be reck- 
oned among the number of extraordinary and temporary ministers 
suited to the first age of Christianity. 

Whether by "pastors and teachers" two offices are meant, or only 
one, has been disputed; but the point is of little consequence. A 
pastor was a teacher ; but teachers were not all necessarily pastors, for 
in many cases they were confined to the office of subordinate instruc- 
tion, whether as expounders of doctrine, catechists, or even more private 
instructors of those who were unacquainted with the first principles of 
the Gospel of Christ. The term pastor implies the duties both of instruc- 
tion and government, of feeding and of ruling the flock of Christ ; and 
as presbyters or bishops were ordained in the several Churches, both by 
the apostles and evangelists, and rules are left by St. Paul as to their 
appointment, there can be no doubt that these are the pastors spoken 
of in Ephesians, that they were designed to be the permanent ministers 
of the Church, and that with them both the government of the Church 
and the performance of its leading religious services were deposited. 
Deacons had the charge of the gifts and offerings for charitable pur- 
poses, though, as appears from Justin Martyr, not in every instance ; for 
he speaks of the weekly oblations as being deposited with the chief 
minister, and distributed by him. 

Whether bishops and presbyters are the same in office, or whether 
these appellatives express two distinct sacred orders, is a subject which 
has been warmly controverted by Episcopalians and Presbyterians. 
Without pretending to engage in this controversy to, any considerable 
length, it may be proper to offer the following remarks : 

(1.) The argument which is drawn from the promiscuous use of these 
terms in the New Testament to prove that the same order of ministers 
is expressed by them appears to be incontrovertible. When St. Paul, 
for instance, sends for the elders or presbyters of the Church at Ephe- 
sus to meet him at Miletus, he thus charges them: "Take heed to 
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath 
made you overseers" or bishops. That the elders or presbyters are 
here called bishops cannot be denied ; and the very office assigned to 



542 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. [Book VI. 

them, to "feed the Church of God," and the injunction, to "take heed 
to the flock" show that the office of elder or presbyter is the same as 
that of pastor in the passage quoted from Ephesians. 

Again, St. Paul directs Titus to " ordain elders {presbyters) in every 
city," and then adds, as a directory to ordination, " a bishop must be 
blameless," etc., plainly marking the same office by these two convertible 
appellations. "Bishops and deacons" are the only classes of ministers 
addressed in the Epistle to the Philippians ; and if the presbyters were 
not understood to be included under the term bishop, the omission of 
any notice of this order of ministers is not to be accounted for. As the 
apostles, when not engaged in their own extraordinary vocation, appear 
to have filled the office of stated ministers in those Churches in which 
they occasionally resided for a considerable time, they sometimes called 
themselves presbyters. "The elder {presbyter) unto the elect lady." 
2 John i, 1. "The elders {presbyters) which are among you I exhort, 
who am also an elder," {presbyter.) 2 Peter v, 1. 

The highest offices of teaching and government in the Church were 
vested in the Presbyters. " Feed the flock of God, which is among 
you, taking the oversight thereof." There is, therefore, the most con- 
clusive evidence from the New Testament, that, after the extraordinary 
ministry vested in the apostles, prophets, and evangelists had ceased, 
the teaching and government of the Church devolved upon an order of 
men indiscriminately called pastors, presbyters, and bishops, the two 
latter names growing into most frequent use. 

(2.) It is not indeed to be doubted, that, at a very early period, in 
some instances probably from the time of the apostles themselves, a dis- 
tinction arose between bishops and presbyters ; in which fact lies the 
whole strength of the cause of Episcopalians. Still this gives not the 
least sanction to the notion, that bishops are a superior order of minis- 
ters to presbyters, invested in virtue of that order, and by Divine right, 
with powers to govern both presbyters and people, and with exclusive 
authority to ordain to the sacred offices of the Church. As little, too, 
will that ancient distinction prove anything in favor of diocesan episco- 
pacy, which is of still later introduction. 

(3.) As to the argument from the succession of bishops from the times 
of the apostles, could the fact be made out, it would only trace diocesan 
bishops to the bishops of parishes; those, to the bishops of single 
churches ; and bishops of a supposed superior order, to -bishops who 
never thought themselves more than presiding presbyters, primi inter 
pares. This, therefore, would only show that an unscriptural assump- 
tion of distinct orders has been made, which that succession, if estab- 
lished, would refute. But the succession itself is imaginary. 

(4.) Whether episcopacy may not be a matter of prudential regula- 
tion is another question. We think it often may ; and that Churches 
are quite at liberty to adopt this mode, provided they maintain St. 



Chap. 1.] THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 543 

Jerome's distinction, that " bishops are greater than presbyters rather 
by custom than by appointment of the Lord, and that still the Church 
ought to be governed in common," that is, by bishops and presbyters 
united. It was on this ground that Luther placed episcopacy, as useful, 
though not of Divine right. It was by admitting this liberty in 
Churches that Calvin and others allowed episcopacy and diocesan 
Churches to be lawful, there being nothing in Scripture to forbid such 
an arrangement when placed on the ground of expediency. Indeed, 
some divines of the English Church have chosen to defend its episco- 
pacy wholly upon this ground, as alone tenable ; and, admitting that it 
is safest to approach as near as possible to primitive practice, have pro- 
posed the restoration of presbyters as a senate to the bishops, the con- 
traction of dioceses, the placing of bishops in all great towns, and the 
holding of provincial synods, thus raising the presbyters to their orig- 
inal rank, as the bishop's " compresbyters" as Cyprian calls them, both 
in government and ordination. 

The only scriptural objection to episcopacy, as it is understood in 
modern times, is its assumption of superiority of order, and of an exclu- 
sive right to govern the pastors as well as the flock, and to ordain to 
the Christian ministry. These exclusive powers are nowhere granted 
to bishops in distinction from presbyters. The- government of pastors 
as well as people was at first in the assembly of presbyters, to which 
ruling body all were individually accountable. As to ordination, it was 
a right in each presbyter, though used by several together for better 
security ; and even when the presence of a bishop came to be thought 
necessary to its validity, presbyters were not excluded. 

Having ascertained who are the proper persons to administer the 
government of the Church, let us direct our attention, 

2. To the Chtjech itself, the body to be governed. — On this subject 
various and opposite opinions have been held, from that of the Papists, 
who contend for its visible unity throughout the world under a visible 
head, to that of the Independents, who consider the universal Church as 
composed of congregational Churches, each perfect in itself, and entirely 
independent of every other. Here we remark, 

(1.) The opinion of the Papists is contradicted by the language of the 
apostles, who, while they teach that there is but one Church composed 
of believers throughout the world, think it not at all inconsistent with 
this to speak of " the Churches of Judea," " the Churches of Galatia," 
"the seven Churches which are in Asia," and " the Church at Ephesus." 
The apostles, among themselves, had no common head ; but planted 
Churches and gave directions for their government, in most cases with- 
out any apparent correspondence with each other. The popish doctrine 
is certainly not found in their writings ; and so far were they from mak- 
ing provision for the government of this one supposed Church, by the 
appointment of one visible head, that they provided for the government 



544 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. [Book VI. 

of the respective Churches raised up by them in a totally different man- 
ner, that is, by the ordination of ministers for each Church, who were 
indifferently called bishops, presbyters, and pastors. 

The only unity of which the apostles speak is the unity of the whole 
Church in Christ, the invisible head, by faith ; and the unity produced 
by the "fervent charity" of the members toward one another. Nor 
has the popish doctrine any countenance from antiquity. The best 
ecclesiastical historians have shown that the Christian Churches were 
independent of one another during the greater part of the second cen- 
tury, and that no very large association of Churches existed till toward 
its close. These facts sufficiently refute the papal argument from 
antiquity. 

(2.) The independence of the early Christian Churches was not, how- 
ever, the same as that of the Churches which in modern times are called 
independent. During the life of the apostles and evangelists they were 
certainly subject to their counsel and control, which proves that the 
independency of separate societies was not the first form of the Church. 
It may be allowed that some of the smaller and more insulated Churches 
might, after the death of the apostles and evangelists, have retained this 
form for some considerable time ; but the large Churches in the chief 
cities, and those planted in populous neighborhoods, had many presby- 
ters, and as the members multiplied they had several separate assem- 
blies or congregations, yet all under the same* common government. 
And when Churches were raised up in the neighborhood of cities, the 
appointment of chorepiscopi, or country bishops, and of visiting pres- 
byters, both acting under the presbytery of the city, with its bishop at 
its head, is sufficiently in proof that the ancient Churches, especially the 
larger and more prosperous of them, existed in that form which in 
modern times we should call a religious connection, subject to a common 
government. 

Having shown that the persons appointed to feed and govern the 
Church of Christ are those who in the New Testament are called pas- 
tors, a word which at once imports both care and government, we will 
proceed to consider, 

III. The share which the body op the people have in theik own 

GOVERNMENT. 

In the investigation of this point it will be necessary, first, to make a 
few remarks in regard to the general principles of Church associations ; 
and, secondly, to apply these principles to particular cases. And, 

1. The only view in which the New Testament writers regarded the 
Churches was that of associations founded on conviction of the truth of 
Christianity, and the obligatory nature of the commands of Christ. 
They considered the pastors as dependent for their support on the free 
contributions of the people, and the people as bound to sustain, love, 
and obey them in all scriptural requirements ; and, in things indifferent, 



Chap. 1.] THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 545 

to pay them a respectful deference. But if any of the pastors or teach- 
ers erred in doctrine, the people were commanded not " to receive 
them," to "turn away" from them, and not even to bid them "god 
speed." The rule which forbids Christians " to eat," that is, to com- 
municate with an immoral " brother," held good, of course, when that 
brother was a pastor. Thus pastors were put under the influence of the 
public opinion of the Churches ; and the remedy of separating from them, 
in manifest defections of doctrine and morals, was afforded to the sound 
members of a Church, where no power existed able or inclined to silence 
the offending pastor and his party. 

2. A perfect religious liberty is always supposed by the apostles to 
exist among Christians. No compulsion of the civil power is anywhere 
assumed by them as the basis of their advices or directions ; no bind- 
ing of the members of one Church, without liberty to join another, by 
any ties but those involved in moral considerations, of sufficient weight, 
however, to prevent the evils of action and schism. It was this which 
created a natural and competent check upon the ministers of the Church, 
for being only sustained by the opinion of the Churches, they could not 
but have respect to it ; and it was this which gave to the sound part of 
a fallen Church the advantage of renouncing, upon sufficient and well- 
weighed grounds, their communion with it, and of kindling up the light 
of a pure ministry and a holy discipline by forming a separate associa- 
tion, bearing its testimony against errors in doctrine and failures in 
practice. 

3. It is also an important general observation that, in settling the gov- 
ernment of a Church, there are pre-existent laws of Christ, which it is 
not in the option of any to receive or reject. Under whatever form the 
governing power is arranged, it is bound to execute all the rules left by 
Christ and his apostles as to doctrine, worship, the sacraments, and dis- 
cipline ; nor is it at liberty to take that office, or to continue to exercise 
it, if by any restrictions imposed upon it it is prevented from carrying 
these laws into effect. Government in the Church, as well as in the 
state, is an ordinance of God ; and as it is imperative upon rulers in the 
state to be "a terror to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well," so 
also is it imperative upon the rulers of the Church to banish strange 
doctrines, to uphold God's ordinances, to reprove and rebuke evil-doers, 
and, finally, to put them away. 

The spirit in which this is to be done is also prescribed. It is to be 
done in the spirit of meekness, and with long-suffering ; but the work 
must be done upon the responsibility of the pastors to Him who has 
commissioned them for this purpose, and they have a right to require 
from the people that in this office and ministry they should not only not 
be obstructed, but affectionately and zealously aided, as ministering in 
these duties, sometimes painful, not for themselves, but for the good of 
the whole. 

35 



546 THE CHRISTIAN CHUECH. [Book VI. 

With respect to the members of a Church, the same remark is appli- 
cable as to the members of a state. It is not a matter of option with 
them whether they will be under government according to the laws of 
Christ or not, for that is imperative ; government in both cases being 
of Divine appointment. They have, on the other hand, the right to full 
security that they shall be governed by the laws of Christ; and they 
have a right to establish as many guards against human infirmity and 
passion in those who are " set over them " as may be prudently devised, 
provided these are not carried to such an extent as to be obstructive to 
the legitimate scriptural discharge of their duties. The true view of 
the case appears to be, that the government of the Church is in its pas- 
tors, open to various modifications as to form, and that it is to be con- 
ducted with such a concurrence of the people as shall constitute a suffi- 
cient guard against abuse, and yet not prevent the legitimate and effi- 
cient exercise of pastoral duties, as these duties are stated in the Scrip- 
tures. 

This original authority in the pastors and concurrent consent in the 
people, as exhibited in these general principles, may be thus applied to 
particular cases : 

(1 .) As to the ordination of ministers. — It will be evident, if we con- 
sult the New Testament, that the power of ordination was never con- 
veyed by the people. The apostles were ordained by our Lord, the 
-evangelists by the apostles, and the elders in every Church both by 
apostles and evangelists. Nothing is clearer in the New Testament 
than that all the candidates for the ministry were judged of by those 
who had been placed in that office themselves, and that from them they 
received their ordination. So also, after the death of the apostles and 
evangelists, the presbyters of the Church continued to exercise this pre- 
rogative. 

In the time of the apostles, who were endowed with special gifts, the 
concurrence of the people in the appointment of men to the sacred 
office was not, perhaps, always formally taken ; but the directions to 
Timothy and Titus imply a reference to the judgment of the members 
of the Church, because from them only it could be learned whether the 
party fixed upon for ordination possessed those qualifications without 
which ordination was prohibited. When Churches assumed a more 
regular form, it was usual for the people to be present at ordinations 
and to ratify the action by their approbation. Sometimes^ also they nom- 
inated persons by suffrages, and thus proposed them for ordination. The 
mode in which the people shall be made a concurrent party is matter 
of prudential regulation ; but they had an early, and certainly a rea- 
sonable right to a voice in the appointment of their ministers, though 
the power of ordination was vested in ministers alone, to be exercised 
on their responsibility to Christ. 

(2.) As to the laws by which the Church is to be governed. — So far 



Chap. 1.] THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 547 

as these are expressly laid down in the word of God the rulers of a 
Church are bound to execute them, and the people to obey them. They 
cannot be matter of compact on either side, except as the subject of a 
mutual and solemn engagement to be governed by them, without any 
modification or appeal to any other standard. 

Every Church declares in some way how it understands the doctrine 
and the disciplinary laws of Christ. This declaration as to doctrine, in 
modern times, is usually made by confessions or articles of faith ; in 
which, if fundamental error is found, the evil rests upon the head of 
that Church collectively, and upon the members individually. For men 
are bound to try all doctrines by the holy Scriptures, nor can any one 
support an acknowledged system of error without guilt. 

The disciplinary laws of Christ relate to the manner in which a Church 
provides for public worship, the publication of the Gospel, the adminis- 
tration of the sacraments, the instruction of the ignorant, the succor of 
the distressed, the admonition of the disorderly, and the excision of 
offenders. On all these points the New Testament has issued express 
injunctions. The declaration of a Church on the subject of disci- 
pline consists, therefore, in its declared interpretation of these injunc- 
tions; but it interprets them on its own collective responsibility and 
that of its members. 

When persons unite with a Church which is acknowledged to be sub- 
stantially correct in its interpretation of doctrine and moral discipline, 
they bind themselves, by this very act, to comply with the original 
terms of the communion into which they enter. They have, therefore, 
as to the doctrines and disciplinary laws of Christ which are to be 
preached and enforced, no rights of control over ministers which shall 
prevent, in these respects, the just exercise of their office. They have a 
right to such regulations and checks as shall secure, in the best possible 
way, the just and faithful exercise of that office and the honest and 
impartial use of that power ; but this is the limit of their right, and 
every system of suffrage or popular concurrence which, under pretense 
of guarding against abuse of ministerial authority, makes its exercise 
absolutely and in all cases dependent upon the consent of those over 
whom it extends, goes beyond that limit and invades that right of pastoral 
government which the New Testament has established. 

(3.) As to those disciplinary regulations ichich are subsidiary to the 
great ends of scriptural communion, they are matters of mutual agree- 
ment, and may be modified by the mutual consent of ministers and 
people under their common responsibility to Christ, provided they are 
in- harmony with the Scriptures and promotive of the welfare of the 
Church. To all such regulations the consent of the people is necessary 
in order to confidence and harmony, and to a proper security for good 
and orderly government. This consent of the people may be given 
either tacitly, by their adoption of the regulations in question, or more 



548 THE CHEISTIAN CHUKCH. [Book VI. 

expressly by the approval of those who, from their age, wisdom, and 
influence, or from special appointment, are their proper representatives. 
In this method of bringing in the concurrence of the people, all assem- 
blages of whole societies, or of very large portions of them, are avoided — 
a popular form of Church government which, however it might be mod- 
ified so as to accord with the scriptural authority of ministers, could 
only be tolerable in very small societies, and that in the times of their 
greatest simplicity and love. 

To raise into legislators and censors all the members of a Church, the 
young, the ignorant, and the inexperienced, is to do them great injury. 
It is the sure way to foster debates, contentions, and self-confidence, to 
open the door to intrigue and policy, to tempt forward and conceited 
men to become a kind of religious demagogues, and entirely to destroy 
the salutary influence of the aged, experienced, and gifted members by 
placing all that is good, and venerable, and dear to the Church at the 
feet of a democracy. 

(4.) As to the x>ower of admission into the Church, that is clearly 
with ministers. To them is committed the office of baptism, by which 
the door is opened into the Church universal ; and as there can be no 
visible communion kept up with the universal Church, except by 
communion with some particular Church, the admission into that partic- 
ular communion must be in the hands of ministers. But the members 
of a Church, though they have no right to obstruct the just exercise of 
this power, have the right to prevent its being unworthily exercised ; 
and their concurrence with the admission of members, in one way or 
other, is an arrangement supported by analogies drawn from the New 
Testament and from primitive usages. 

The expulsion of unworthy members devolves upon ministers for this 
reason, that, as u shepherds " of the flock under the " Chief Shepherd," 
they are charged to carry his laws into effect. These laws it is neither 
with them nor with the people to modify ; they are already declared by 
superior authority ; but the determination of the facts of the case to 
which they are applied is matter of mutual investigation and decision, 
in order to prevent an erring or improper exercise of authority. That 
such an investigation should take place, not before the assembled mem- 
bers of a society, but before a proper and select tribunal, appears to be 
a regulation which is both proper and necessary. 

The trial of unworthy ministers remains to be noticed. This, wherever 
a number of religious societies exist as one Church, having therefore many 
pastors, is manifestly most safely placed in the hands of those pastors 
themselves ; not only because the official acts of censure and exclusion 
lie with them, but also for other reasons. It can scarcely happen that a 
minister should be under accusation, except in some very particular 
cases, but that, from his former influence, some faction would be found 
to support him. In proportion to the ardor of this feeling, the other 



Chap. 1.] THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 549 

party would be excited to undue severity and bitterness. To try such 
a case before a whole society there would not only be the same objec- 
tion as in the case of private members, but the additional one that parties 
would be more certainly formed, and be still more violent. If he must 
be arraigned, then, before some tribunal, the most fitting is that of his 
brethren, provided the accusing party has the right to bring on such a 
trial upon the exhibition of probable evidence, and to prosecute it with- 
out obstruction. 

The preceding remarks contain only a mere sketch of those principles 
of Church government which appear to be contained in the New Testa- 
ment, or to be suggested by it. They still leave much liberty to Chris- 
tians to adapt them in detail to the circumstances in which they are 
placed. The offices to be created ; the meetings necessary for the man- 
agement of the various affairs of the Church, spiritual and financial ; the 
assembling of ministers in larger or smaller numbers for counsel, and 
for the oversight of each other and of the Churches to which they 
belong, are all matters of this kind, and are left to the suggestions of 
wisdom and piety. The extent to which distinct societies of Christians 
shall associate in one Church, under a common government, appears also 
to be a matter of prudence and of circumstances. 

IV. The ends to which Church authority is legitimately 

DIRECTED. 

These ends, which we will briefly consider, are of the highest import- 
ance to mankind. They are, 

1. The preservation and publication of " sound doctrine" — Against 
false doctrines, and the men " of corrupt minds" who taught them, the 
sermons of Christ and the writings of the apostles abound in cautions. 
And since St. Paul lays it down as a rule as to erring teachers that 
" their mouths must be stopped," it is evidently implied that the power 
of declaring what sound doctrine is and of silencing false teachers was 
confided by the apostles to the Christian Church. The abuse of this 
power by the ambition of man forms no small part of that antichris- 
tian usurpation which characterizes the Church of Rome. But extrav- 
agant as are her claims, so that she brings in her traditions as of equal 
authority with the inspired writings, and denies to men the right of 
private judgment and of trying her dogmas by the test of the Holy 
Scriptures, there is nevertheless a sober sense in which this power may 
be understood. 

The great Protestant principle, that the Holy Scriptures are the only 
standard of doctrine, that the doctrines of every Church must be proved 
out of them ; and that every individual member has a right to bring 
them to this standard, in order to the confirmation of his own faith, 
must be held inviolate, if we would not see Divine authority displaced 
by human. But since men may come to different conclusions in regard 
to the meaning of Scripture, it has been the practice from primitive 



550 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. [Book VI. 

times to declare the sense in which Scripture is understood by collective 
assemblies of ministers, and by the Churches united with them, in order 
to the enforcement of such interpretations upon Christians generally, 
by the influence of learning, piety, numbers, and solemn deliberation. 

While one of the apostles lived, an appeal could be made to him 
when any new doctrine sprung up in the Church. After their death, 
smaller or larger councils, composed of the public teachers of the 
Churches, were resorted to, that they might pronounce upon these differ- 
ences of opinion, and by their authority confirm the faithful and silence 
the propagators of error. Still later, four councils, called general, from 
the number of persons assembled in them from various parts of Chris- 
tendom, have peculiar eminence : the Council of Nice in the fourth 
century, which condemned the Arian heresy, and formed that scrip- 
tural and important formulary called the Nicene Creed ; the Council of 
Constantinople, held at the end of the same century, which condemned 
the errors of Macedonius, and asserted the divinity and personality of 
the Holy Ghost ; and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, about the 
middle of the fifth century, which censured the opinions of Nestorius 
and Eutyches. The decisions of these councils, both from their antiquity 
and from the manifest conformity of their decisions on these points to 
the Holy Scriptures, have been received to this day in what have been 
called the orthodox Churches throughout the world. 

This authority of a Church in matters of doctrine appears to be 
reduced to the following particulars, which, though directly opposed to 
the assumptions of the Church of Rome, are of great importance : 

(1.) To declare the sense in which it interprets the language of Scrip- 
ture on all the leading doctrines of Christianity ; for to contend, as some 
have done, that no creeds or articles of faith are proper, but that belief 
in the Scriptures only ought to be required, would be to destroy all 
doctrinal distinctions, since all interpreters profess to believe the 
Scriptures. 

(2.) To require from all its members, with whom the right of private 
judgment is by all Protestant Churches left inviolate, to examine such 
declarations of faith, with modesty and proper respect to those grave 
and learned assemblies in which all these points have been weighed with 
deliberation ; receiving them as guides to truth, not implicitly, it is true, 
but still with docility and humility. 

(3.) To silence within its own pale the preaching of all doctrines con- 
trary to its received standards. Nor is there anything in the exercise 
of this authority contrary to Christian liberty ; because the members 
of any communion, and especially the ministers, know beforehand the 
terms of fellowship with the Churches whose confessions of faith are 
thus made public ; and because also, where conscience is unfettered by 
public law, they are neither prevented from enjoying their own opinions 
in peace, nor from propagating them in other assemblies. 



Chap. 1.] THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 551 

2. The forming of such regulations, in accordance with the princi- 
ples of the Gospel, as will promote the general interests of the Church. 
— This exercise of ecclesiastical authority consists in making canons or 
rules for those particular matters which are not provided for in detail 
by the directions of Scripture. This power, like the former, has sometimes 
been carried to a culpable excess. The simplicity of Christianity has thus 
often been destroyed, and mere human opinions have been set up as the 
" commandments of God." 

There is, however, a sound sense in which this power in the Church 
must be admitted ; for when the laws of Christ are both rightly under- 
stood and cordially received, the application of them to particular cases 
is still necessary, and is with the Church. Many regulations also are 
dictated by inference and by analogies, and appear to be required by 
the spirit of the Gospel, for which there is no provision in the letter. 
For instance, though the obligation of public worship is plainly stated, 
the seasons of its observance, its frequency, and the mode in which it is 
to be conducted must be matters of special regulation. Baptism is to 
be administered ; but .the manner of this service is not definitely pre- 
scribed in Scripture. So also we have no inspired law as to the mode 
and times of receiving the Lord's supper. In the absence, therefore, of 
inspired directions in regard to all such matters the regulations of the 
Church are necessary, that all things may be done " decently and in 
order." 

It is then doubtless competent for the Church to form such regula- 
tions for the conduct of its ministers, officers, and members as shall 
establish a common order for worship ; facilitate the management of the 
affairs of the community, spiritual, economical, and financial; and give 
a right direction to the general conduct of the whole society. The gen- 
eral principles by which these regulations should be controlled are the 
spirituality, simplicity, and practical character of Christianity ; and the 
authority with which they are invested is derived from piety, wisdom, 
and singleness of heart in those who originate them, and from that docil- 
ity and submissiveness of Christians to each other which is enforced 
upon them in the New Testament. 

3. The infliction and removal of censures. — The abuse of this 
power of the Church, and the extravagant lengths to which it has 
occasionally been carried, have led some wholly to deny it, or to treat 
it slightly ; but it is nevertheless a power which is deposited with every 
scriptural Church. Even associations much less solemn and spiritual in 
their character have the power to put away their offending members, 
and to receive them again, upon certain conditions. In the case of a 
Christian Church, however, the proceeding connects itself with Divine 
authority. The members have separated themselves from the world, 
and have placed themselves under the laws of Christ. To him they 
sustain a special relation so long as they are faithful. They are the 



552 THE SACRAMENTS. [Book VI. 

objects of his care and love, as members of his own body ; and to them 
as such great and numerous promises are made. To preserve them in 
this state of fidelity, to guard them from errors in doctrine and vicious- 
ness of practice, and thus to prevent their separation from Christ, the 
Church with its ministry, its ordinances, and its discipline was estab- 
lished. 

But he who becomes unfaithful in opposition to the influence of those 
edifying and conservatory means, forfeits the favor of Christ even 
before he is deservedly separated from Church communion. And when 
he is thus separated from the fellowship of the faithful, he loses also 
the benefit of all those peculiar means of grace and salvation which 
Christ bestows upon the Church. He is, by the solemn sentence of a 
religious tribunal, thrown back upon the world as an enemy to God, and 
as being exposed to the penalty of his violated law. Where the sentence 
of excision by a Church is erring or vicious, as it may be in some 
cases, it cannot affect an innocent individual. He would remain, not- 
withstanding the sentence of men, a member of Christ's invisible uni- 
versal Church. But when it proceeds upon a just application of the laws 
of Christ, there can be no doubt of its ratification in heaven, though the 
door is left open to penitence and restoration. 

In concluding this chapter it may be observed that however difficult 
it may be, in some cases, to adjust modes of Church government, so that 
in the view of all the principles of the New Testament may be fully recog- 
nized, and the ends for which Churches are collected may be effectually 
accomplished, this labor will always be greatly smoothed by a steady 
regard on all sides to duties as well as to rights. These are equally 
imperative upon ministers, upon subordinate officers, and upon the pri- 
vate members of every Church. Charity, candor, humility, public spirit, 
zeal, a forgiving spirit, and a desire — a strong desire of unity and har- 
mony, ought to pervade all, as well as a constant remembrance of the 
great and solemn truth that Christ is the Judge as well as the Saviour 
of his Churches. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE SACRAMENTS. 

The word used by the Greek fathers for sacrament was fivarrjpwv. 
This word, in the New Testament, always means either a secret — some- 
thing unknown till revealed — or the spiritual meaning of some emblem 
or type. In both these senses it is rendered, in the Vulgate translation, 



Chap. 2.] THE SACKAMENTS. 553 

sacramentum^ which, shows that the latter word was formerly used in 
a large signification. As the Greek term (fivoTfjpiov) was employed in 
the New Testament to express the hidden meaning of an external sym- 
bol, as in Revelation i, 20, " the mystery of the seven stars," it was nat- 
urally applied by the early Christians to the symbolical rite of the Lord's 
supper. 

The Latin word sacramentum, in its largest sense, may signify a 
sacred ceremony, and is the appellation, also, of the military oath of 
fidelity taken by the Roman soldiers. For both these reasons, probably, 
the term sacrament was adopted by the Latin Christians. For the first, 
because of the peculiar sacredness of the Lord's supper ; and for the 
second, because of that engagement which was implied in this sacred 
ordinance to be faithful to the commands of Christ. The same term 
was also applied, at an early period of the Church, to the ordinance of 
baptism. But in order that we may gain a more distinct knowledge of 
the Christian sacraments, let us inquire into their nature and their 
number. 

I. Their nature. 

Of the nature of sacraments there are three leading views : 

1. That which is taken by the Church of Home. — According to her 
the sacraments contain the grace which they signify, and confer grace, 
ex opere operato, by the work itself, upon such as do not put an obstruc- 
tion by mortal sin. "For these sensible and natural things," it is 
declared, " work by the almighty power of God in the sacraments what 
they could not do by their own power." Nor is anything more neces- 
sary to this effect than that the priest, " who makes and consecrates the 
sacraments, have an intention of doing what the Church doth, and doth 
intend to do."* 

According to this doctrine the matter of the sacrament derives from 
the action of the priest, in pronouncing certain words, a Divine virtue ; 
and this grace is conveyed to the soul of every person who receives it. 
Nor is it required of the person receiving a sacrament that he should 
exercise any good disposition or possess faith ; for such is conceived to 
be the physical virtue of a sacrament that, except when opposed by the 
obstacle of a mortal sin, the act of receiving it is alone sufficient for the 
experience of its efficacy. 

Against this view of the sacraments the following objections may be 
-urged: I. It has no authority from the sacred Scriptures, 2. It is anti- 
scriptural. It makes the communication of saving grace depend alone 
upon a sacrament ; but the Scriptures declare that it depends upon true 
faith. 3. It debases an ordinance of God from a rational service into a 
mere charm. 4. It is of licentious tendency ; as venial sins cannot pre- 
vent the recipient of a sacrament from receiving the grace which it 
communicates. And, 5. It makes whatever privileges the sacraments 

* Cone. Trid., Can. ii. 



554 THE SACRAMENTS. [Book YI. 

are intended to confer depend entirely upon the intention of the admin- 
istrator. 

2. The Socinian notion. — The opinion of Socinus and his followers, 
toward which some orthodox divines have too carelessly leaned, is that 
the sacraments do not differ essentially from other religious rites and 
ceremonies; but that their peculiarity consists in their emblematic 
character, under which they represent spiritual and invisible things, and 
are memorials of past events. Their sole use, therefore, is to cherish 
pious sentiments by leading the mind to such meditations as are adapted 
to excite them. Some also add that they are the badges of a Christian 
profession, and the instituted means by which Christians testify their 
faith in Christ. 

The fault of the popish opinion is superstitious excess ; the fault of the 
latter scheme is that of defect. The sacraments are emblematical ; they 
are adapted to excite pious sentiments ; they are memorials, at least the 
Lord's supper bears this character ; they are badges of profession ; they 
are the appointed means for declaring our faith in Christ ; and so far is 
this view superior to the popish doctrine that it elevates the sacraments 
from the base and degrading character of a mere incantation to that of 
a reasonable and spiritual service. It is defective, however, as we will 
soon show, in not considering the sacraments to be signs and seals of 
the covenant of grace. 

3. The true Protestant doctrine respecting the nature of the sacra- 
ments. — This, in the formularies of different Protestant Churches, is 
variously expressed ; but the essential features of the doctrine are all 
included in the following definition : A sacrament is a holy ordinance 
formally instituted by Christ in his Church, not only as a badge or token 
of our Christian profession, but rather as a sign and seal of the covenant 
of grace, and a means of conveying to us the blessings of the Gospel. 
The essential characteristics of the sacraments are the following : 

(1 .) They are instituted by Christ himself. — It is this consideration 
which stamps a peculiar sanctity on these institutions, and binds us so 
sacredly to the observance of them. It is right that due honor should 
be given to those ceremonies of human appointment which are calcu- 
lated to promote the good order and edification of the Church ; but let 
them not be placed on a level with the religious observances which 
derive their origin immediately from the command of Christ. These are 
obligatory on the conscience, and none who are faithful to him can treat 
them with indifference. That baptism and the Lord's supper are 
express and positive institutions of Christ cannot be denied. He com- 
manded the apostles to disciple all nations, " baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt, 
xxviii, 19. So, also, when he instituted the supper, he said to his dis- 
ciples, first with respect to the bread, " Take, eat ; this is my body ;" 
and then in regard to the cup, "Drink ye all of it." Matt, xxvi, 26, 27. 



Chap. 2.] THE SACKAMENTS. 555 

(2.) They are signs of Divine grace. — As such they are visible and 
symbolical expositions of the benefits of redemption. In other words, 
they exhibit to the senses, under appropriate emblems, the same benefits 
that are exhibited in another form in the doctrine and promises of the 
word of God. As Augustine said, "sacramentum esse verbum visibile." 
It is not difficult to see how aptly the water of baptism points out that 
" washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," which is 
promised to all who believe. Thus the prophet seems to allude both to 
the sign and the thing signified : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
you, and ye shall be clean." Ezek. xxxvi, 25. So in the feast of the 
Eucharist the visible elements which are employed point to the broken 
body and shed blood of the Redeemer. " The cup of blessing which 
we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? the bread 
which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" 1 Cor. 
x, 16. Hence says the apostle, "As often as ye eat this bread, and 
drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. xi, 26. 
But while we thus gratefully remember the death of our Lord, this sacra- 
mental service impresses deeply upon the mind lessons of the most 
important instruction. 

(3.) They are seals. — A seal is a confirming sign ; or, according to 
theological language, there is in a sacrament a signum. significans and a 
signum confirmans ; the former of which is said (significare) to notify 
or to declare, the latter (obsignate) to set one's seal to, to witness. 
The sacraments are the seal of the covenant of grace, both on the part 
of God and on the part of men. They are seals on the part of God by 
which he declares his gracious intention of bestowing his favors upon 
us, and by which he binds himself to fulfill his covenant engagements. 
While we look upon these symbols we feel our minds impressed with 
his condescension and love, our faith in his promises is confirmed, and 
the most devout affections toward him are excited. On our part also 
they are seals by which we enter into the most solemn obligations with 
him, according to the terms of the covenant which he proposes to our 
acceptance. While, by the reception of these visible tokens, we profess 
to " lay hold upon the hope set before us," we seal the solemn contract, 
as with our own signature, that we will dedicate to God ourselves and 
our all — that we will be his alone, and his forever. 

(4.) The sacraments are means of grace, as well as signs and seals 
of it. — We do not imagine, with the superstitious devotees of the 
Church of Rome, that the sacraments contain the grace which they sig- 
nify, or that any spiritual virtue or real efficacy is necessarily connected 
with them. But still there is a sober sense in which they may be 
regarded as means of grace to those who rightly receive them. They 
stand in intimate connection with the essential doctrines of Christianity, 
and they can in themselves produce no effect upon those who have no 
knowledge of these doctrines, or no conviction of their truth. But as 



556 THE SACRAMENTS. [Book VI. 

the Gospel " is the power of God unto salvation," and as in the sacra- 
ments the leading doctrines of the Gospel are taught in the most 
impressive manner, it would be absurd to suppose that they do not in 
this way exert a saving influence. In the administration of these sacred 
rites our faith is called into lively exercise, and our expectations are 
enlarged. The very act of participating in them implies that the favor 
which God tenders to us we put forth our hand to receive. Thus, 
according to our Sixteenth Article, by these sacraments God "doth 
work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen 
and confirm our faith in him." 

The sacraments, then, are federal transactions between God and our 
souls, and the conveyancers to us of the blessings of the Gospel. To 
every one who receives the sign a seal and pledge of the invisible grace 
is also given ; and every one who draws near with a true heart and 
with full assurance of faith does, in his own person, enter into God's 
covenant. Let us, therefore, be mindful of our sacred obligations. Let 
us give diligence to prove ourselves faithful. God will not forget his 
engagements ; but let us fear lest we aggravate our guilt and condem- 
nation by a species of perjury, of all kinds the most base and detestable. 
Let every Christian say, in the language of the psalmist, " Thy vows 
are upon me, O God." 

II. The number of the sacraments. 

The number of sacraments is held by all Protestants to be but two, 
baptism and the Lord's supper, because they find no others instituted 
in the ISTew Testament or practiced in the early Church. The super- 
stition of the Church of Rome has added no fewer than five to the 
number — confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction. 

As to these five additional sacraments of the Church of Rome, they 
have no visible sign ordained of God ; nor do they stand in direct con- 
nection with any covenant engagement with his creatures. Confirma- 
tion rests on no scriptural authority whatever. Penance, if it means 
anything more than repentance, is equally unsanctioned by Scripture ; 
and if it means u repentance toward God," it is no more a sacrament 
than faith. Orders, or the ordination of ministers, is an apostolic com- 
mand, but has in it no greater indication of a sacramental act than any 
other such command. Marriage appears to be made a sacrament for 
this curious reason, that St. Paul, when speaking of the love and union 
of husband and wife, and taking occasion from that to allude to the 
love of Christ to his Church, says, " This is a great mystery ;" which the 
Vulgate translates, " Sacramentum hoc magnum est.'''' Thus they con- 
found the large and the restricted sense of the word sacrament, and for- 
get that the true "mystery" spoken of by the apostle lies not in mar- 
riage, but in the union of Christ with his people. As to extreme unction, 
it is nowhere prescribed in Scripture ; and if it were, it has clearly noth- 
ing in it of a sacramental character. 



Chap. 3.] THE NATUKE OF BAPTISM. 557 



CHAPTER III. 

BAPTISM. 

Few subjects within the range of theology have given rise to a greater 
amount of controversy than that of Christian baptism ; and perhaps it is 
one on which we may not hope for a general agreement of sentiment. 
But as baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, and as every one 
is required to examine the doctrines and institutions of Christianity for 
himself, it will be proper for us to investigate this subject in the light 
of revealed truth. Three things will require examination: 1. The 
nature of baptism; 2. Its subjects ; and, 3. Its mode. 

§ 1. The Nature of Baptism. 

Baptism, as a Christian ordinance, may be defined to be the applica- 
tion of pure water to a proper subject, by a lawful administrator, in the 
name of the sacred Trinity. 1. It is the application of pure water, as 
the language of the apostle clearly indicates. "Having our hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure 
water" 2. The water must be applied to a proper subject ; not to 
an inanimate object, but to a human being under certain circum- 
stances. 3. The ordinance must be performed by a lawful administra- 
tor ; and as the commission to baptize was given to ministers of the 
Gospel alone, no others have a right to perform this office. And, 
4. It must be administered in the name of the sacred Trinity, " bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost." 

In considering more particularly the nature of baptism, two things 
will demand our attention; 1. Its universal obligation ; and, 2. Its sac- 
ramental import. 

I. Its Univeksal Obligation. 

There are those who deny that we are under any obligation to observe 
the rite of water baptism under the Christian dispensation. Some of 
these persons, to support their opinion, adduce Hebrews ix, 10 : " Which 
stood only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordi- 
nances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." From this it 
has been argued that baptism was among those carnal ordinances that 
were to be done away in Christ. That the term washings, in the texts, 
means baptisms, is admitted ; but it by no means follows that the bap- 
tism of the Gospel is included. The apostle in the passage is referring 



558 baptism. [Book VI. 

to the Jewish worship, as may be seen by the context. Of whatever 
nature those washings were, and to whatever extent they were used in 
the Jewish worship, they, together with every other rite and ceremony 
attached to the Jewish dispensation, were in fact done away at the 
opening of the Gospel dispensation. Therefore, though the unbelieving 
Jews retained those ceremonies, yet it must be admitted that Chris- 
tians rejected them. But as water baptism was administered by the 
apostles after the opening of the Christian dispensation, it clearly fol- 
lows that Christian baptism was not embraced in the washings of which 
the apostle here speaks. 

Some argue against the use of baptism under the Christian dispensa- 
tion from the language of John the Baptist : " I indeed baptize you 
with water unto repentance: but he (Christ) shall baptize you with 
the Holy Ghost." Matt, iii, 11. From this the inference is drawn 
that under the new dispensation water baptism was to be dis- 
continued, and the baptism of the Spirit to take its place. It is true, 
John's baptism may have been done away when Christ baptized 
with the Holy Ghost; but that proves nothing against the insti- 
tution and perpetuation of the Christian ordinance. Hence this text, 
as well as the other, fails to afford any warrant for rejecting water 
baptism. 

That baptism is of universal and perpetual obligation may be 
proved, 

1. From our Lord's excess command. — He said to his apostles, 
" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo, I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matt, xxviii, 19, 20. 
This passage contains a general command to make disciples of all 
nations, and two specific directions how this is to be accomplished : 
1. By baptizing them in the name of the Holy Trinity; and, 2. By 
teaching them to observe whatsoever Christ had commanded. It is also 
very clearly implied in the passage, that the observance of baptism is to 
be coextensive with the preaching of the Gospel, and to be continued 
to " the end of the world." Of the same import is the parallel passage 
in Mark xvi, 15, 16 : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel 
to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; 
but he that believeth not shall be damned." 

2. From the, words of Christ to Nicodemus. — " Except a man be 
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God." John iii, 5. If by the phrase " born of water" our Lord did 
not allude to baptism, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determ- 
ine what the meaning of the passage is. But if he refers to this, then 
it will follow that he recognizes baptism as an ordinance of his religion, 
for if not, why does he thus speak of it ? Why connect it in any 



Chap. 3, §1.] THE NATURE OF BAPTISM. 559 

respect with entering into the kingdom of God ? Though we would 
not affirm that no man can be saved without being baptized, yet we 
think our Lord may be fairly understood as teaching the doctrine that 
this is the regularly instituted means by which we make a public pro- 
fession of his religion and enter into his visible kingdom, and that those 
who neglect this when the duty is made known to them neglect a plain 
command of God. 

3. From apostolic practice. — The history of the Church shows that 
the apostles uniformly baptized all who believed. Thus Peter, on the 
day of Pentecost, exhorted the people, " Repent, and be baptized every 
one of you, for the remission of sins." " Then they that gladly received 
his word were baptized." Acts ii, 38, 41. "But- when they believed 
Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the 
name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." 
Acts viii, 12. 

Let no one say that water baptism is not intended in these passages. 
We admit that through the laying on of the hands of the apostles the 
Holy Ghost was given ; but by whom ? We answer, Not by the apos- 
tles, but by God himself, whose prerogative alone it is to " give the 
Holy Spirit to them that ask him." If, then, the apostles did not bap- 
tize with the Holy Ghost, they must have baptized with water ; for it is 
positively asserted that they did baptize. 

But that they baptized with water is put beyond all dispute by the 
sacred history. Take, for instance, the case of Philip and the eunuch. 
" They came unto a certain water ; and the eunuch said, See, here is 
water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Acts viii, 36. Did the 
eunuch suppose that the presence of water was necessary, in order that 
he might be baptized with the Spirit ? But further : " They went 
down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he bap- 
tized him." Why did they both go down into the water if that 
was not the element to be employed in administering the sacred ordi- 
nance ? 

Again, let us consider the language of Peter in the house of Cor- 
nelius : " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be bap- 
tized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" Acts x, 47. 
Here the apostle marks an evident distinction between water baptism 
and that of the Spirit. These persons had " received the Holy Ghost." 
This baptism of the Spirit was poured out upon them while Peter was 
preaching the word; but after all this he inquires, "Can any man 
forbid water ?" When, therefore, " he commanded them to be bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord," he commanded water baptism, and 
not the baptism of the Spirit. Hence we have clear and positive tes- 
timony that the apostles baptized with* water ; and consequently, that 
baptism under the Christian dispensation is of Divine authority, and of 
perpetual obligation. 



560 baptism. [Book VI. 

II. Its Sacramental Impoet. 

Baptism, in its sacramental import, is the initiatory ordinance into 
the visible Church of Christ, and a sign and seal of the covenant of 
grace. 

1. It is initiatory. — That the Church of Christ, as a visible society, 
must have some mode of admitting members, is generally conceded. 
This mode must be either the requisition of a spiritual qualification or 
the performance of some visible act. It cannot be the former, for of 
that qualification the Church is not competent to judge. As the form 
of initiation must therefore be a visible act, what can that act be ? It is 
not the act of attending public worship, for many do this who are confess- 
edly not members of the Church. Nor does it consist in a public avowal 
of religion, for this would preclude all infants. It is not the celebration 
of the eucharist ; for this, as it is to be often repeated, cannot be an initia- 
tory rite. It follows, therefore, that it must be baptism, which has been 
regarded as initiatory from the earliest ages of Christianity. To deny 
this is the same as to affirm that Christianity has no initiatory ordinance. 

But that our Lord intended baptism to be the initiating ordinance into 
his visible Church is evident from the fact that he connected it, by posi- 
tive injunction, with that grand commission which he gave to his apos- 
tles to " preach the Gospel to every creature." This initiatory charac- 
ter of baptism is alluded to by the apostle when he inquires of the Cor- 
inthians, "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Cor. i, 13. Here 
he evidently assumes the principle that if he had baptized any persons in 
his own name, he would thereby have represented himself as the head 
of a sect. But as they were baptized in the name of Christ, they were 
thereby united to his Church by this initiatory rite. 

2. Baptism is a sign. — As such, it holds out to our view all the pro- 
visions and promises of the covenant ef grace. It is a symbolic repre- 
sentation, 

(1.) Of our spiritual purification. As water is universally employed 
to cleanse things from external impurity, it is most appropriately used 
as the symbol of that gracious influence by which the soul is cleansed 
from its moral defilement. While baptism, therefore, is an acknowledg- 
ment of that guilt and moral pollution in which all are involved, it is a 
recognition of the placability of God to man, the cleansing efficacy of the 
blood of Christ, and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. The 
promise of God is, "I will pour water upon him that is -thirsty, and 
floods upon the dry ground ; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and 
my blessing upon their offspring." Isa. xliv, 3. "Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness 
and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give 
you, and a new spirit will I put within you." Ezek. xxxvi, 25, 26. In 
exact accordance with these predictions our Lord declares, " Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 



Chap. 3, § 2.] THE NATURE OF BAPTISM. 561 

dom of God." So also the apostle: "According to his mercy he saved 
us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
Whenever, therefore, this ordinance is administered, it enforces this 
exhortation both upon the subject and upon every spectator : " Let us 
draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure 
water." Heb. x, 22. But, 

(2.) As a sign, baptism is especially emblematical of that effusion of 
the Spirit which is peculiar to the Gospel dispensation. This is perhaps 
one of the principal reasons why it was substituted for circumcision ; for 
in baptism by affusion (the New Testament mode of baptizing, as we 
shall show in the proper place) we have a natural symbol of this heav- 
enly gift. Accordingly, the pouring out of the " Spirit upon all flesh," 
which is spoken of by the prophet Joel, is in the New Testament called 
a baptism. To this baptism of the Spirit John had reference when he 
said of Christ, " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Matt, iii, 11. 
To this our Lord himself also alluded when he said to his disciples, after 
his resurrection, " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence." Acts i, 5. These predictions were gloriously fulfilled on 
the day of Pentecost, when " they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." 
It was then that the Holy Spirit, in all his fullness, was "shed forth" 
upon the Church of God. For this, reason Christianity is called "the 
ministration of the Spirtt ;" and so far is this from being confined to the 
miraculous gifts in the first age of the Church, that to be " led by the 
Spirit " is made the standing and prominent test of true Christianity : 
"If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. 
viii, 9. Of this great new covenant blessing, baptism, in its true mode 
of administration, is eminently the sign, as it represents the pouring 
out of the Spirit, the descending of the Spirit, and the falling of the 
Spirit upon men. 

3. Baptism is a seal. — It is, on the part of God, a visible assurance 
of his faithfulness to his covenant stipulations. Thus he condescends to 
bind himself by a perpetual ceremony — a ceremony to which the weak 
and wavering may ever appeal, as a sensible pledge of his unwavering 
fidelity. But it is our seal also. It is that act by which we make our- 
selves a party to the covenant, and thus " set to our seal that God is 
true." In this respect it binds us, as, in the other, God mercifully binds 
himself for the stronger assurance of our faith. We pledge ourselves to 
trust wholly in Christ for pardon and salvation, and to obey his laws ; 
" teaching them," says Christ, " to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you." 

§ 2. The Subjects of Baptism. 

The nature of baptism having been explained, we may proceed to con- 
sider who are its proper subjects. This question has long been, and 

36 



562 baptism. [Book VI. 

still continues to be, a fruitful source of controversy ; but if we view it 
in the light both of the Old and the New Testament, it will not be a 
difficult matter to arrive at true and satisfactory conclusions. Relying, 
therefore, upon the teachings of God's word, we affirm that the proper 
subjects of Christian baptism are, 

I. Believers in Christ. 

That religious instruction, in the case of adults, is prerequisite in order 
to baptism, is evident from the language of the great commission in 
which this rite was instituted : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost." Here teaching precedes baptism, and prepares the sub- 
jects for the reception of the ordinance. It is also evident that faith is 
a necessary qualification. The eunuch said to Philip, " See, here is water ; 
what doth hinder me to be baptized ?" To this Philip responded, " If 
thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and 
said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Thus it is evident 
from the language of Philip that the want of faith, in the case of adults, 
is an insuperable bar to this sacrament. 

That believers are proper subjects of baptism is established by the 
language of Christ. "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be 
saved." Mark xvi, 16. The same fact is taught in Acts x, 46-48. 
" Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should 
not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? 
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." 
This passage proves, in addition to the object for which it is here 
adduced, that men may receive the Holy Ghost, and, consequently, may 
be regenerated without being baptized. Therefore, baptism cannot be 
the regenerating act, as is so confidently affirmed by some. 

n. The infant children of believing parents. 

But here we are met, at the very threshhold of our argument, by 
various objections. It will, therefore, be proper, 1. To obviate the objec- 
tions that are usually urged against the position here assumed; and, 2. To 
support it by direct arguments. 

First, then, we will consider and obviate the objections to infant 
baptism. Those commonly urged are, 

(1.) That it has no express warrant in the word of God. How far 
this objection is founded in truth we will consider in another place. 
But supposing it, for the sake of the argument, to be true, does it, there- 
fore, follow that infants ought not to be baptized ? To draw this con- 
clusion is to assume the principle that, so far as religious observances are 
concerned, whatever is not expressly enjoined in the word of God ought 
not to be done. If so, then females ought not to be admitted to the 
Lord's supper, for there is certainly no express warrant for female com- 
munion. The word dvdpunog, in 1 Corinthians xi, 28, cannot be pleaded 
as a warrant, because it is commonly applied to males, and sometimes 



Chap. 3, § 2.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 563 

means males in opposition to females : as, " For this cause shall a man 
{anthropos) leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife." Matt. 
xix, 5. So our Lord is called "the man (anthropos) Christ Jesus." 
1 Tim. ii, 5. 

Again, according to this mode of reasoning, we ought not to keep the 
first day of the week as a holy Sabbath, for this rests on no express war- 
rant in the word of God. The same is also true in regard to the duty 
of family prayer ; and yet who that believes in the truth of Christianity 
will dare affirm that it ought not to be observed ? Indeed, there are 
many duties incumbent on us which are not expressly commanded, but 
rest upon the ground of inference alone. We conclude, therefore, that 
if there were even no express warrant in the Scriptures for the baptism 
of infants it would not thence follow that they ought to be shut out 
from the ordinance. As well might we conclude that females ought to 
be prevented from coming to the table of the Lord, parents exempted 
from praying with their families, or those exculpated from crime who 
disregard the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath. 

(2.) That infants cannot believe, and, therefore, should not be bap- 
tized. — We have already shown that faith, in a greater or less degree, 
in the case of adults, is an indispensable qualification for baptism ; but 
that infants are to be shut out from the ordinance because they cannot 
believe is what we deny. To assume this position is to take for granted 
what is not true, namely, that the seal of God's covenant is not to be 
placed on any who are incapable of faith. This condition is connected 
with baptism precisely as it was with circumcision. When Abraham 
was circumcised it was " a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
he had" previously exercised; but when Isaac was to be circumcised 
no faith on his part was required, for of this he was incapable. So, 
likewise, in reference to baptism, faith is necessary; but it is only 
required of those who are capable of exercising it, while their infant 
children become proper subjects of the ordinance in consequence of the 
faith of the parents. The objection, therefore, is a mere sophism. But 
in addition to this it proves as much against the salvation of infants as 
it does against their admission to the ordinance of baptism. Our Lord 
has positively declared, " He that believeth not shall be damned." But 
infants do not believe ; and, therefore, according to the doctrine of the 
objection, infants shall be damned. Thus we see that the objection 
proves too much, and, consequently, it proves nothing at all. ' But it is 
objected, 

(3.) That as Christ places teaching before baptism, and as infants are 
incapable of being taught, therefore they ought not to be baptized. — 
To this our reply is, that no sound argument can be based upon the 
mere order in which events are recorded in the Scriptures, except so far 
as the order of those events is a matter of record. The sacred writer 
tells us that " John baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism 



564 baptism. [Book VI. 

of repentance." And again, "they were baptized of him in Jordan 
confessing their sins." Mark i, 4, 5. Are we to conclude that John 
baptized the people before he preached to them? or that he baptized 
them before they confessed their sins? By no means; and yet these 
conclusions would be legitimate according to the principle assumed in 
the objection. If a man were to affirm that in the antediluvian families 
all the daughters were younger than the sons, and were to adduce as 
the proof of his theory the oft-repeated clause, " and begat sons and 
daughters," would not such an argument provoke a smile ? But who 
does not see that it would be quite as rational as the objection which 
we are considering ? It is also objected, 

(4.) That infants should not be bound by this ordinance, because they 
cannot consent to the covenant of which it is the seal. — To suppose that 
parents have no right to bind their children in covenant engagements is 
contrary to the common consent of all men and to the daily course of 
human events. This right is involved in every act of civil legislation, 
in every conveyance of real estate, and in almost every pecuniary trans- 
action. Thus men bind themselves, their heirs and assigns forever. 

But the principle assumed in the objection is refuted by the testimony 
of sacred history. " Ye stand this day all of you," said Moses, " before 
the Lord your God ; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your 
officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy 
stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the 
drawer of thy water : that thou shouldst enter into covenant with the 
Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with 
thee this day." Deut. xxix, 10-12. Here it is obvious, that not only 
the parents, but also their "little ones," entered into covenant with 
God. To this we may add the remark, that the obligations of religion 
do not depend on our voluntary consent ; and this one consideration is, 
in itself, a sufficient refutation of the objection. It is moreover ob- 
jected, 

(5.) That baptism can do infants no good, and, therefore, they ought 
not to be baptized. Of all the objections to infant baptism this is the 
most flimsy, and yet the most common ; especially among the less 
informed. They ask with an air of contempt, what good can it do 
them ? and seem to think that they have effectually exploded the doc- 
trine by this simple question. But suppose we cannot see how baptism 
can do infants any good, would we thereby be justified in rejecting it? 
Certainly not ; for this would be to make our ignorance the rule of duty 
and not our knowledge. We cannot subscribe to the doctrine, either 
that infants are regenerated by baptism, or that the want of it will exclude 
them from the kingdom of God ; but who can say that they will not in 
riper years be influenced by their baptismal dedication to God on being 
duly informed of the fact ? and who can tell how far God may answer 
the prayers directed to his throne at the time of that solemn dedica- 



Chap. 3, § 2.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 565 

tion ? Until we can fully answer these questions we should not be too 
loud and positive in our declaration, that baptism can do infants no 
good. 

Having thus considered the objections usually urged against infant 
baptism, we will proceed, in the second place, to present some argu- 
ments in its support. That the infant children of believing parents are 
proper subjects of baptism may be proved, 

1. From their being admitted to membership in the Church of 
God under the Abrahamic covenant. 

To perceive the force of this argument in its true light several things 
must be taken into the account. It must be understood that the Church 
of God took its visible form in the covenant which he made with Abra- 
ham, that of that covenant, circumcision was the sign and seal, that the 
Christian Church is a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant, and that 
baptism has taken the place of circumcision, and is to Christianity what 
circumcision was to the former covenant. These points are all suscep- 
tible of the clearest proof, as we will now proceed to show. 

(1.) The Church of God took its visible form in the Abrahamic 
covenant. — That the covenant which God made with Abraham was the 
general covenant of grace, and not wholly, or even chiefly, a political 
and national covenant, is abundantly evident from the terms in which it 
is expressed.* 

The first engagement in it was, that God would greatly bless Abra- 
ham; which promise, though it comprehended temporal blessings, 
referred more especially, as we learn from St. Paul, to the blessing of 
justification by the imputation of his faith for righteousness, with all the 
spiritual advantages consequent upon the relation which was thus estab- 
lished between him and God in time and eternity.f 

The second promise in the covenant was, that he should be " a father 
of many nations ;" which, according to St. Paul, refers more particu- 
larly to his spiritual seed than to his natural descendants. That " the 
promise might be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which is of the 
law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the 
father of us all ;" that is, of all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. 

The third promise was, " to be a God unto Abraham, and to his seed 
after him," a promise which implies the highest spiritual blessings, such 
as the remission of sins and the sanctification of our nature ; as also a 
visible Church state. It is even used to express the felicitous state of 
the Church in heaven. " And God himself shall be with them, and be 
their God." Rev. xxi, 3. 

The fourth stipulation in God's covenant with the patriarch was, to 

give to him, and to his seed after him, " all the land of Canaan, for an 

everlasting possession." But this temporal promise was manifestly 

the type of the higher promise of a heavenly inheritance. Hence St. 

* See Gen. xii, 1-3 ; xvii, 1-8; xxii, 17, 18. \ See Gal. iii, 14. 



566 baptism. [Book VI. 

Paul says, " By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a 
strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs 
with him of the same promise." But this faith did not respect the ful- 
fillment of the temporal promise ; for the apostle adds, " He looked 
for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." 
Heb. xi, 9, 10. 

The final engagement in this covenant was, that in the seed of Abra- 
ham " all the nations of the earth should be blessed ;" and this blessing, 
we are taught by St. Paul, was nothing less than the justification of all 
believers in all nations, by faith in Christ : " And the Scripture, foresee- 
ing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before 
the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." 
Gal. iii, 8, 9. 

This covenant with Abraham, therefore, though it had respect to a 
natural seed, Isaac, from whom a numerous progeny was to spring, 
and to an earthly inheritance provided for this issue, the land of 
Canaan, was nevertheless, under these temporal advantages, to all 
intents and purposes the covenant of grace, embodying itself under these 
circumstances, as types of a dispensation of salvation and eternal life, to 
all who should follow the faith of Abraham, whose justification before 
God was the pattern of the justification of every man in all ages, whether 
Jew or Gentile. This covenant was perpetuated in its visible form by 
that special covenant which God made with the descendants of Abra- 
ham, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, whom he acknowledged as his visi- 
ble Church. 

But here it is objected by some, that God had no Church in the world 
until the day of Pentecost ; and in support of this opinion they adduce 
the language of our Lord to Peter, Matthew xvi, 18, "Upon this rock 
I will build my Church." In reply to this it is only necessary to remark, 
that the objection contradicts the Scriptures. David says, " In the 
midst of the congregation {Church) will I praise thee." Psa. xxii, 22. 
And Stephen says of Christ, " This is he that was in the Church in the 
wilderness." Acts vii, 38. In these passages, therefore, the Church- 
state of the Jews is fully acknowledged. 

(2.) Of the Abrahamic covenant circumcision was the sign and seal. 
— God said to Abraham, " This is my covenant, which ye shall keep 
between me and you, and thy seed after thee ; every man child among 
you shall be circumcised. And it shall be a token of the covenant 
between me and you." Gen. xvii, 10, 11. St. Paul says, "And he 
received the sign of circumcision ; a seal of the righteousness of the 
faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." Rom. iv, 11. This rite 
was enjoined upon the posterity of Abraham under this solemn consider- 
ation, that every man child who was not circumcised on the eighth day 
was to be cut off from his people by the special judgment of God for 



Chap. 3, § 2.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 567 

having broken the covenant. Hence it follows that this sacrament was 
a constant publication of God's covenant of grace among the descend- 
ants of Abraham, and its repetition a continual confirmation of that 
covenant on the part of God to all practicing it in that faith of which it 
was the ostensible expression. 

(3.) The Christian Church is a continuation of the Abrahamic cov- 
enant.— -This appears to be undeniable when we consider, 

First, that the covenant which God made with Abraham, and of 
which circumcision was the sign and seal, was to be everlasting in its 
duration and universal in its blessings. " I will establish my covenant 
between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for 
an everlasting covenant" Gen. xvii, V. "And in thy seed shall all the 
nations of the earth be blessed." Gen. xxii, 18. Hence this covenant, 
in its highest sense, is carried out in the Gospel dispensation. 

Secondly, that Abraham is recognized in the sacred Scriptures as the 
father of all true believers. Thus St. Paul tell us that "he received 
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
he had yet being uncircumcised : that he might be the father of all 
them that believe^ though they be not circumcised, that righteousness 
might be imputed to them also ; and the father of circumcision to them 
who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps 
of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircum- 
cised." Rom. iv, 11, 12. 

Thirdly, that Christ came to sit upon the throne of David. It is to 
this the prophet had reference when he said, " Of the increase of his 
government and peace there shall be no end, uj>on the throne of David, 
and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment 
and with justice, from henceforth even forever." Isa. ix, 7. In exact 
accordance with this prediction is the language of Zacharias, the father 
of John the Baptist. " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for he hath 
visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation 
for us in the house of his servant David ; as he spake by the month of 
his holy prophets, which have been since the world began; that we 
should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate 
us. To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember 
his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that 
he would grant unto us, that we, being delivered oat of the hands of our 
enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness 
before him, all the days of our life." Luke i, 68-75. 

These quotations are so full and explicit that hardly another word is 
necessary to point out and establish the intimate connection between 
the covenant which God made with Abraham and the Gospel dispensa- 
tion. That covenant, in its visible form, was perpetuated in the Church- 
state of the Jews until the coming of Christ, who claimed to be " the 
King of Israel," and was so acknowledged by his disciples. He there- 



bQS baptism. [Book IV. 

fore took his seat, in the language of the prophet, " upon the throne of 
David," not in a literal but in a spiritual and ecclesiastical sense, as the 
King and Head of that Church which had existed from the days of 
Abraham, " to order it, and to establish it even forever." Accordingly, 
our Lord claimed the Jews as his own people. John says, " He came 
to his own." 

Fourthly, that the Abrahamic covenant was not annulled by the pro- 
mulgation of the Gospel, but was thereby extended to all nations, 
according to its original intention. Hence the visible Church of God, 
which for ages had been confined to a single nation, instead of being 
dissolved was opened for the reception of believing Gentiles, without 
any respect to national distinctions. This is beautifully illustrated by 
St. Paul in the eleventh chapter of Romans. He compares the believing 
portion of the Jewish Church — the true sons of Abraham — to a " good 
olive-tree." By the breaking off of some of its natural branches he 
represents the rejection of the unbelieving Jews ; and by the grafting 
in of others from the wild olive-tree, the reception of the believing Gen- 
tiles. In all this it is taken for granted by the apostle that the " good 
olive-tree," the true Abrahamic Church, is still standing. He, there- 
fore, adds, that if the broken-off branches " abide not still in unbelief," 
they shall be again united to the same olive-tree. 

Thus the unity of the Church under the former and the present dis- 
pensation is fully established. The very covenant which God made 
with Abraham was an epitome of the Gospel. Hence says the apostle, 
"The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall 
all nations be blessed." Gal. iii, 8. He says of the Israelites, also, that 
" they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them ; and that Rock 
was Christ." 1 Cor. x, 4. 

(4.) Baptism has taken the place of circumcision, and is to Chris- 
tianity what circumcision was to the former covenant. — At the intro- 
duction of the new dispensation the peculiar rites and ceremonies of the 
Old Testament Church passed away, and with them the initiatory rite 
of circumcision ceased. But that baptism has precisely the same federal 
and initiatory character as circumcision, and that it was instituted for 
the same ends, and in its place, we have full proof in Colossians ii, 10-1 2 : 
"And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality 
and power; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh 
by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism" Here 
baptism is made the initiatory rite of the new dispensation. By it the 
Colossians were joined to Christ, in whom they are said to be " com- 
plete /" and so certain is it that baptism has the same office and import- 
ance as circumcision formerly, that the apostle expressly calls it u the 
circumcision of Christ /" which phrase he puts out of the reach of 



Chap. 3, § 2.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 569 

frivolous criticism by adding exegetically, "buried with him in bap- 
tism" For, unless the apostle here calls baptism " the circumcision of 
Christ," he asserts that we " put off the body of the sins of the flesh," 
that is, become new creatures by virtue of our Lord's own personal cir- 
cumcision ; but if this is absurd, then the only reason for which he can 
call baptism " the circumcision of Christ," or Christian circumcision, is, 
that it has taken the place of the Abrahamic circumcision, and fulfills 
the same office of introducing persons into God's covenant, and of enti- 
tling them to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings. 

But of this we have additional proof in Galatians iii, 27-29: "For 
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. 
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is 
neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if 
ye be Christ's," by thus being baptized and by putting on Christ, "then 
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." The argu- 
ment here is also decisive. It cannot be denied that it was by circum- 
cision, believingly received, that strangers or heathens, as well as Jews, 
became the spiritual " seed of Abraham," and heirs of the same spiritual 
and heavenly promises. But in this passage the very same office is 
ascribed to baptism ; and the conclusion is therefore inevitable, that 
baptism is to us what circumcision was to the former dispensation. 

This view of the subject is corroborated by the consideration that 
both these rites are symbolical of the same moral change. St. Paul tells 
us that " circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 
letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Rom. ii, 29. In like 
manner he speaks of baptism as being emblematical of a death to sin, 
and a new spiritual life. " Therefore we are buried with him by bap- 
tism into death ; that like as Christ was raised" up from the dead by the 
glory of the Father, even so also we should walk in newness of life." 
Rom. vi, 4. 

To the substitution of baptism for circumcision it is sometimes objected 
that as the latter was restricted to males, the former would be placed 
under the same restriction, if it had been put in the place of circumcis- 
ion. This objection, however, can have no force, except with the unin- 
formed. Circumcision and baptism are both what we denominate pos- 
itive institutions. Who then will dare to affirm that God had not a 
right to determine the peculiar circumstances under which they should 
be signs and seals of his covenant? 

Let us now sum up our argument and see whether it does not amount 
to a scriptural warrant for the practice of infant baptism. We have 
shown,. that the Abrahamic covenant was the general covenant of grace ; 
that children were embraced in that covenant, and were admitted into 
the visible Church by circumcision ; that Christianity is but a continua- 
tion, under a new form, of that covenant which God made with Abra- 
ham ; and that baptism is now the sign and seal of the covenant of 



570 BAPTISM. [Book VI. 

grace, as circumcision was under the former dispensation. From these 
premises it necessarily follows that as the infant children of believing 
parents, under the Old Testament, were proper subjects of circumcision, 
so the infant children of Christian believers are proper subjects of 
baptism. 

The only means by which this argument can be set aside, is the adduc- 
tion of some scriptural prohibition of infant baptism. But such a pro- 
hibition does not exist ; and this single fact is a sufficient proof, under 
all the circumstances of the case, that infants have a right to this sealing 
ordinance. Had it been intended to exclude them from entering into the 
new covenant by baptism, the absence of every prohibitory expression 
to this effect in the New Testament must have been misleading to all 
men, and especially to the Jewish believers. To prohibit infants from 
entering into God's covenant by baptism, when they had always been 
entitled to enter into it by circumcision, is therefore a censurable inter- 
ference with the authority of God — a presumptuous attempt to fashion 
the new dispensation, in this respect, so as to conform to a mere human 
opinion of fitness and propriety. 

2. From Scripture Testimony. 

There are many Scriptures that might be adduced in support of infant 
baptism, but we will confine ourselves to two single passages. The first 
is Mark x, 14 : " Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid 
them not ; for of such is the kingdom of God." ' 

This passage is not brought forward to prove that the children spoken 
of were brought to Christ for the purpose of baptism. We do not 
know that he ever administered the ordinance himself, either to adults 
or infants. But we adduce it as direct and unequivocal testimony that 
children belong to the kingdom of God. The opposers of infant bap- 
tism allege that the phrase " of such," means, of such like ; that is, of 
adults being of a childlike disposition, a criticism which takes away all 
meaning from the words of our Lord. For what kind of reason was it 
to offer for permitting children to come to Christ for his blessing, that 
persons, not children, but who were of a childlike disposition, were sub- 
jects of the kingdom of God? The absurdity of this notion is its own 
refutation, since the reason for permitting them to come to Christ must 
be found in themselves and not in others. 

Another way to evade the argument from this passage is to under- 
stand the phrase, " kingdom of God," exclusively of the heavenly state. 
We gladly admit that all children dying in infancy are, through the 
merits of Christ, admitted to heaven. But for this very reason it fol- 
lows that infants are proper subjects to be introduced into the phurch 
of Christ on earth ; unless it can be shown that more is required in order 
to admission into the visible Church than into the Church triumphant. It 
is well known, however, to those who are acquainted with the phrase- 
ology of the New Testament, that the phrases, " the kingdom of God," 



Chap. 3, § 2.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 571 

and " the kingdom of heaven," are more frequently employed by our 
Lord to denote the Church in this present world than in its state of glory. 
Accordingly, in the above passage, his meaning evidently is that chil- 
dren belong to his Church on earth; and if so, they are proper subjects 
of baptism, which is the initiatory rite into every portion of that Church 
which is visible. 

The next passage which we adduce is Acts ii, 39 : " For the promise 
is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many 
as the Lord our God shall call." 

In order to perceive the bearing of this passage upon the question 
before us, it is only necessary to consider the resemblance that there is 
between the declaration of Peter, " the promise is to you, and to your 
children," and the promise of God to Abraham. This resemblance is 
seen in two particulars : 1. Each stands connected with an ordinance by 
which persons were to be admitted into the visible Church ; in the one 
case by circumcision, in the other by baptism. 2. Both agree in phrase- 
ology. The one is, " unto thee, and to thy seed ;" the other, " unto you, 
and to your children." Every one knows that seed, and children are 
terms of the same import. It follows, therefore, from these two points 
of resemblance, that the subjects in both cases are the same ; and as it is 
certain that in the promise of God to Abraham both parents and infant 
children were included, it must be equally certain that both are included 
in the announcement of Peter. Here, then, we have an e?:press warrant 
for infant baptism. 

It is sometimes urged, by way of objection, that if infants are baptized 
they should also be admitted to the Lord's supper. To this our reply 
is, that as baptism is passively received, it may be administered to all 
infants ; but to partake of the supper requires an agency of which many 
of them are physically incapable. Again, as the Lord's supper is to be 
a memorial to each participant, infants are intellectually incapable of 
receiving it according to its intention. To this we have an exact par- 
allel in the Jewish passover ; and -though all Jewish children were cir- 
cumcised at eight days old, yet they did not eat the passover until they 
could comprehend its design. 

3. From Apostolic Practice. 

Though we admit that nothing positive in regard to the baptism of 
infants can be collected from the practice of the apostles, yet there is, in 
their practice, strong presumptive evidence in our favor. We have on 
record at least four cases of family baptism : the household of Lydia, the 
house of the Philippian jailer, the house of Crispus, and the house Ste- 
phanas.* Without dwelling upon these cases individually and at length, 
it is only necessary to remark, 1. That the word olnoe, rendered house 
and household, means in general household, family, posterity, lineage, 
and agrees with the idea of children. 2. That these household baptisms 

* Acts xvi, 13, 33: xviii, 8; 1 Cor. i, 16. 






572 baptism. [Book VI. 

appear to have taken place through the faith of the parents or heads 
of families. This is especially evident in the case of Lydia and her 
family. Though her reception of the Gospel is particularly spoken of, 
not a word is said respecting the faith of her household. Hence it is 
very clearly implied that they were baptized on the ground of her faith. 
3. That the accounts which the sacred writers give of these cases are 
just such records as we should expect to be made of the baptism of 
whole families, including infant children. And, 4. That there is 
no fact, in the administration of this ordinance by the apostles, that 
stands opposed to the practice of infant baptism. Whatever testimony 
arises from apostolic practice is therefore in favor of the doctrine that 
the infant children of believing parents are proper subjects of baptism. 

4. From the History of the Church. 

That the practice of infant baptism has existed in the Church for 
many centuries is a fixed fact, which no one will deny who has .any 
knowledge of ecclesiastical history. It must therefore be allowed, 
either that this practice was established by the apostles themselves, and 
from them has been handed down to us, or that it was introduced at a 
period subsequent to apostolic times. If the latter be assumed, we may 
then be allowed to ask, When and where did the practice commence ? 
Who introduced it? Who opposed it? By what council was it adopted? 
To these questions no answer can be given, for, in regard to the points 
which they involve, the history of the Church affords no information. 
The practice, according to Baptist writers, is an innovation, not upon 
the circumstances of a sacrament, but upon its essential principle / and 
yet its introduction produced no struggle, was never noticed by 
any general or provincial council, and excited no controversy. This 
itself is sufficient to refute the notion that it was introduced at any 
period subsequent to the days of the apostles, and is therefore a 
strong presumptive proof that infant baptism rests upon apostolic 
authority. That it was generally practiced in the Church in the first 
centuries of the Christian era, is supported by the most ample testi- 
mony. 

Justin Martyr, who was born about the time of St. John's death, 
says, when speaking of the members of the Church in his day, that 
"there were many of both sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years 
old, who were made disciples to Christ in their infancy." In this he 
must have had reference to baptism, for in no other way could infants 
have been made disciples. 

Origen, born of Christian parents about the year 184, and a man of 
more information than any other of his day, says, " Infants are baptized 
for the remission of sins." And again : " The Church hath received the 
tradition from the apostles, that baptism ought to be administered to 
infants." 

In the middle of the third century Fidus, an African bishop, applied 



Chap. 3, § 3.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 573 

to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, to know if children might be baptized 
before the eighth day. The question was referred to a council of sixty- 
six bishops met at Carthage, who decided unanimously that they might 
be baptized at any time. 

Augustine, who lived in the fourth century, says, " The whole Church 
practices infant baptism. It was not instituted by councils, but was 
always in use." Again : "I do not remember to have read of any per- 
son, whether Catholic or heretic, who maintained that baptism ought 
to be denied to infants." 

Pelagius, a man of great learning, about the close of the fourth cen- 
tury, after having traveled through France, Italy, Egypt, and Africa, 
says, "I never heard of even an impious heretic who asserted that 
infants are not to be baptized." 

Dr. Wall, who examined this subject more extensively, perhaps, than 
any other man, sums up his history thus : "First, during the first four 
hundred years from the formation of the Christian Church Tertullian 
only urged the delay of baptism to infants, and that only in some cases ; 
and Gregory only delayed it, perhaps, to his own children. But neither 
any society of men, nor any individual, denied the lawfulness of baptiz- 
ing infants. Secondly, in the next seven hundred years there was not 
a society nor an individual who even pleaded for this delay ; much less 
any who denied the right or the duty of infant baptism. Thirdly, in 
the year eleven hundred and twenty, one sect of the Waldenses denied 
baptism to infants, because they supposed them to be incapable of sal- 
vation. But the main body of that people rejected the opinion as heret- 
ical, and the sect which held it soon came to nothing. Fourthly, the 
next appearance of this opinion was in the year fifteen hundred and 
twenty-two." 

We think it impossible to account for these testimonies on rational 
principles, without admitting that the practice of infant baptism has 
come down to us from the days of the apostles. 

§ 3. The Mode of Baptism. 

On this question the Christian world has long been divided. Some 
assert that baptism can only be performed by immersing the whole 
body of the subject in water ; while' others maintain that it may be 
scripturally administered by sprinkling or pouring / or, to use a term 
which includes both, by affusion. The precise question, therefore, to 
which our attention is now to be directed is this: Is immersion essential 
to Christian baptism ? Of the question thus stated we take the nega- 
tive, and will proceed, 1. To examine the arguments which are usually 
employed in favor of immersion as the only mode ; and, 2. To adduce 
arguments in support of affusion. 

I. Arguments for Immersion. 



574 baptism. [Book VI. 

We will not promise to notice all the arguments which immersionists 
employ in proof of their theory ; but we will consider those which they 
most frequently use, and on which they most confidently rely. It is 
common for them to draw an argument, 

1. From the meaning of (3anri^G), to baptize; the word which is used 
in the New Testament to designate this ordinance. — Immersionists 
assert that " all lexicographers define baptizo to mean to immerse, to 
dip, to plunge; not one to sprinkle, or to pour. Whether this asser- 
tion is true or false we will leave to be determined by the lexicogra- 
phers themselves. 

Schrevelius, that great master of the Greek language, whose Lexicon 
has been a standard, work for nearly two hundred years, defines baptizo 
by mergo, abluo, lavo ; that is, to immerse, to wash, to sprinkle, to 
moisten or wet. The same definitions are given both by Scapula and 
Hendericus, only one of which denotes exclusive immersion, the others 
signifying the application of water by other modes. 

Schleusner, in his Lexicon of the New Testament, a work of the high- 
est authority, defines baptizo, 1. "To immerse in water; 2. To wash, 
sprinkle, or cleanse with water ; 3. To baptize ; 4. To pour out largely." 
Only one of these definitions restricts the meaning to immersion. Three 
of them denote the application of water by affusion. 

Cole defines baptizo, to baptize, to wash, to sprinkle; and Passor 
defines it to immerse, to wash, to sprinkle. 

jSuidas defines baptizo by mergo, madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, 
mundo ; that is, to immerse, moisten, sprinkle, wash, purge, cleanse. 

Conlor defines it by mersione, ablutione, et aspersione; that is, immer- 
sion, washing, sprinkling or wetting. 

The learned Dr. Dwight tells us that the original meaning of bapto, 
the root from which baptizo is derived, is " to tinge, stain, dye, or color;" 
and Grove defines it "to dip, plunge, immerse, wash, wet, moisten, 
stain, sprinkle, steep, imbue, dye, or color." 

Thus we see that lexicographers do not confine themselves to the idea 
of immersion in defining baptizo, but that they embrace also that of 
affusion. It follows, therefore, that, so far as their authority is con- 
cerned, the mode of baptism is still an open question. 

To this we may add that the Greek word (3dnTG), and its derivative 
Panrt^G), are sometimes so employed in the sacred Scriptures as evi- 
dently to convey the idea of affusion and exclude that of immersion. 
Hence, 

(1.) We read, Lev. xiv, 6: "As for the living bird, he (the priest) 
shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and 
shall (bapsei) dip (or tinge) them and the living bird in the blood of 
the bird that was killed over the running water." Here it is evident 
that bapsei, which is an inflection of bapto, cannot mean to immerse, 
for it is impossible that the " living bird, and the cedar wood, and the 



Chap. 3, § 3.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 575 

scarlet, and the hyssop," should all have been totally immersed in the 
blood of one bird. 

(2.) In Daniel iv, 33, it is recorded that Nebuchadnezzar's body was 
(ebaphe) " viet with the dew of heaven." Now what is the action which 
is here expressed by ebaphe, an inflection of bapto ? Was the king 
dipped or plunged into the dew of heaven ? If we allow the Scriptures 
to explain their own phraseology, they will determine this to be a clear 
case of affusion, and not of immersion. Thus, "The dew fell upon the 
camp in the night." Num. xi, 9. " His heavens drop down dew." Dent, 
xxxiii, 28. "As the dew falleth on the ground." 2 Sam. xvii, 12. 

(3.) It is stated, Mark vii, 3, 4, that " the Pharisees, and all the Jews, 
except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the 
elders. And when they come from the.market, except they wash, (bap- 
tize themselves,) they eat not." Here we see that to "wash their 
hands" and to baptize themselves, are synonymous phrases ; and that 
an application of water to a part of the person is truly and properly 
baptism. It is moreover well known that among the Jews their custom- 
ary mode of washing hands was by affusion ; as in 2 Kings iii, 1 1 : 
" Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured toater on the hands 
of Elijah." It would, indeed, be absurd to suppose, unless the fact 
could be clearly proved, that "all the Jews" were in the habit of 
immersing themselves in water before they could partake of any food. 

(4.) St. Paul tells us, 1 Corinthians x, 2, that the Israelites " were all 
baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Was this baptism an 
immersion? The history of the case, as it is recorded in the fourteenth 
chapter of Exodus, will teach a very different lesson. We will present 
the leading facts as they took place. It was late in the day when the 
Egyptians overtook the Israelites. The first thing that took place was, 
" The pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind 
them," even "between the camp of the Egyptians .and the camp of 
Israel." Verses 19, 20. And it was here — on dry land — before the sea 
was divided, that the Israelites were, as Paul expresses it, " under the 
cloud." The next event that took place was the dividing of the waters. 
" Moses stretched out his hand over the sea ; and the Lord caused the 
sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea 
dry land, and the waters were divided." Verse 21. Thirdly, "the chil- 
dren of Israel," in the morning, " went into the midst of the sea upon 
dry ground ; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, 
and on their left." Verse 22. 

It is therefore evident from the very face of this account that the 
Israelites were not immersed ; and yet, according to St. Paul, they were 
baptized. They were not under the water — they were not in the water 
— they were not " in the sea " and " under the cloud" at the same time; 
but they were all the time in the open air, with their feet on dry ground, 
and with a wall of water on either hand. There was, however, a real 



576 baptism. [Book VI. 

immersion on the occasion. The Egyptians were immersed, " for the 
waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the 
host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them.'* Verse 28. 

As, then, it is absolutely certain that the Israelites were not immersed, 
how were they baptized ? This may be clearly gathered from the his- 
tory of the event. We have seen that before they went into the sea 
the cloud passed over them, to take its place between them and the 
Egyptians — a position which it seems to have occupied until the Israel- 
ites had passed over to the other shore. It was only then that they 
were " under the cloud ;" and it was then, in all probability, that 
they were baptized with it. And as the wind which had driven 
back the waters no doubt continued while they were passing over, 
it was perfectly natural that, they should be sprinkled with the 
spray from the sea, which stood as a wall on each side of them. Here, 
then, we have a rational account of the manner in which they were 
baptized, that is, with water from the cloud and from the sea ; and a 
complete type of Christian baptism in regard to its mode — they were 
baptized by affusion. 

(5.) The apostle, in speaking of the ceremonial purifications of the 
law, calls them divers baptisms. "Which stood only in meats and 
drinks, and divers washings, ((3a7Trio[iolg, bajrtisms,) and carnal ordi- 
nances." Heb. ix, 10. Were these divers baptisms performed by immer- 
sion f The local circumstances of the Jews in regard to a supply of 
water, both at the time that their laws of purification were first 
appointed, and during their entire journey through the wilderness, are 
decidedly against such a supposition. A frequent scarcity of water is 
one of the notable facts in their history ; and for such a vast number of 
people to immerse themselves as frequently as the law demanded their 
purifications, and that for forty years in the desert, was a thing utterly 
impracticable. Yet when Moses commanded the people to cleanse, wash, 
or bathe themselves, it was never objected to as impossible ; nor is there 
the least intimation that it was ever neglected under any circumstances. 

The term which the sacred historian employed to designate those cer- 
emonial purifications is also against the supposition that they were per- 
formed by immersion. In Leviticus xv, 5, 8, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27 ; and in 
Numbers xix, 7, 8, 19, we read of a ceremonial bathing of the body. 
In all these passages the Hebrew word rendered bathe is RACHATZ, 
to wash / and is translated by louo in the Greek, and by lavo in the 
Latin. In Exodus xxix, 4; xl, 12, 32 ; Leviticus xiv, 8, 9, and many 
other passages, the same Hebrew word is rendered wash in our English 
Bible. To suppose, therefore, that Moses commanded the people to 
immerse themselves, or one another, for legal impurities, is in direct oppo- 
sition to the plain letter of the Scriptures. Indeed, it may be safely 
affirmed, that so far as the ceremonial washings of the Jews required an 
administrator they were always performed by affusion / nor is there 



Chap. 3, § 3.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 577 

the least evidence that any of them required the plunging of the whole 
body in water. 

We conclude, therefore, that the baptisms of which the apostle speaks 
consisted in affusing the, people with blood, oil, or water, either pure or 
impregnated with the ashes of the red heifer ; and that he calls them 
" divers washings," not because they varied in mode, but because they 
were performed for various ceremonial purposes. In explaining himself 
in the context he mentions no other mode than that of sprinkling. 
"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer 
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how 
much more shall the blood of Christ ?" " For when Moses had spoken 
every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood 
of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and 
sprinkled both the book and all the people." " Moreover, he sprinkled 
likewise with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the minis- 
try." Heb. ix, 13, 14, 19, 21. Here, then, according to the testimony 
of St. Paul, sprinkling is baptism. But immersionists argue, 

2. ffiom the circumstances connected with many of the baptisms 
recorded in the New Testament. — They direct our attention, 1. To 
John's baptizing in Jordan, Matthew iii, 5,6: " Then went out to him 
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and 
were baptized of him in Jordan." 2. To the baptism of our Lord, 
Matthew iii, 16 : "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight- 
way out of the water." 3. To the baptism of the eunuch, Acts viii, 38, 39 : 
" And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; 
and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, 
the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." 

The whole strength of the argument in favor of immersion which is 
deduced from these Scriptures, is based upon four Greek prepositions : 
en, eis, ek, and apo. The first is translated in; the second, into; and 
the other two, out of; as, "in Jordan," "into the water," " out of the 
water." Now, were we to grant that these prepositions are invariable 
in their meaning, and that they are always to be understood as they are 
translated in the preceding passages, would it necessarily follow that the 
baptisms referred to were administered by immersion ? It certainly 
would not. 

We are not now inquiring whether John baptized his disciples and 
our Lord " in Jordan," nor whether Philip and the eunuch " went down 
into the water," and " came up out of the water ;" but the question is 
this : Did John and Philip administer the ordinance by dipping ox plung- 
ing the subjects into the water ? To this question these prepositions 
furnish no reply ; for every one knows that it is possible for persons to 
go " down into the water," and "to come up out of the water," when 
no immersion occurs ; and that, too, in connection with the ordinance 
of baptism. 

37 



578 baptism. [Book VI. 

"Will any one contend that the act of going " down into the water " 
implies immersion ? If he does he must allow that Philip was immersed 
as well as the eunuch, for it is said that " they both went down into the 
water ;" and for anything that appears in the record, the one was as 
deep in the water as the other. Were we, therefore, to grant immer- 
sionists all they claim, in regard to the meaning of these words, they 
could not thereby establish a single case of baptism by immersion. The 
record only says that the persons "were baptized" — not that they were 
immersed, or dipped, or plunged. 

The next step in the argument is to show that these prepositions have 
more meanings than one — in other words, that en does not always 
mean in, eis, into, and ek and apo, out of. Schleusner, in his cele- 
brated Lexicon of the New Testament, tells us that en has thirty-six 
distinct meanings ; eis, twenty-six ; ek, twenty-four ; and apo, twenty. 
According to Greenfield, Grove, and others, en means in, at, by, near 
to, etc. ; eis, in, to, unto, near to, toward, etc. ; ek, from, out of, away 
from, etc. ; and apo, from, out of, away from, etc. It would be easy 
to illustrate all these meanings by Scripture examples, but this is not 
necessary, as they will be admitted by every man of common intelli- 
gence. 

There is, therefore, an entire want of proof that ever any of the IsTew 
Testament baptisms were actually administered in the water. For, as 
en means at or near to, as well as in, nothing more can be inferred from 
John's baptizing " in Jordan " than that he baptized at or near to it. 
And that the language of the evangelist is so to be understood, is evi- 
dent from other passages of Scripture. Accordingly, it is said, Mark 
i, 4, that " John did baptize in the wilderness." But if we conclude, 
according to Baptist logic, that John was actually in the water of Jor- 
dan when he baptized those who went out to him from the surrounding 
region, how are we to reconcile this conclusion with the unequivocal 
declaration that he baptized in the wilderness ? Are we to suppose that 
the wilderness in which he baptized extended into the river, so that he 
could baptize " in Jordan " and " in the wilderness " at the same time ? 
or that he was capable of baptizing, at the same time, in two different 
places ? or that he baptized the multitudes twice : first, " in the wilder- 
ness," and secondly, "in Jordan?" As these suppositions are evidently 
absurd, the only just conclusion is that John baptized " in the wilder- 
ness " at, near to, or in the neighborhood of Jordan. 

This conclusion is corroborated by John i, 28: "These things were 
done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing." Here 
it is only necessary to remark that the persons whom John baptized in 
Bethabara could not, according to the argument of immersionists, have 
been baptized "in Jordan," for Bethabara was not in Jordan, but 
beyond it. This subject receives additional light from John x, 40, where 
it is stated that Jesus " went away again beyond Jordan into the place 



Chap. 3, § 3.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 579 

where John at first "baptized ; and there he abode." But when our Lord 
" went away into the place where John at first baptized," did he go into 
Jordan ? The text teaches us most clearly that the place to which he 
went, and in which he took up his abode, was beyond Jordan. It cannot 
be supposed that he went into " the river of Jordan," and took up his 
residence in its waters ; and yet this would be the legitimate conclusion 
from the argument which we are opposing. Thus, Jesus " went into 
the place where John at first baptized, and there he abode." But John 
at first baptized " in the river of Jordan ;" therefore, Jesus " went into 
the river of Jordan," and " there he abode." The only way to escape 
this conclusion is to admit what the Scriptures most obviously teach, 
that John at first baptized in Bethabara beyond Jordan, and not in its 
waters. 

It only remains for us to observe that as apo means from far more 
frequently than it does out of to say that " Jesus, when he was bap- 
tized, went up straightway "from " the water," would be a faithful trans- 
lation of the original. So, likewise, as eis means to or unto, as well as 
into, and ek, from, as well as out of nothing more can be proved in 
regard to Philip and the eunuch than that they went down to the 
water, and after the eunuch was baptized they came up from the 
water. 

There is one other passage which we will notice in this connection, 
and on which immersionists greatly rely as a proof of the correctness of 
their theory. It is this : "And John also was baptizing in iEnon, near 
to Salim, because there was much water there." John iii, 23. 

Here it is assumed that the " much water " spoken of was required 
only for baptism, and could not be necessary for any other purpose ; 
and that as " John was baptizing in iEnon because there was much 
water there," he must therefore have immersed his disciples. But is it 
not the language of common sense that for the accommodation of the 
vast multitudes that attended his ministry " much water " was neces- 
sary, even if he had not baptized any of them ? And if there are other 
obvious reasons, besides that of immersion, for his requiring " much 
water," we are at perfect liberty to conclude that these alone influenced 
him in the selection of ^Enon. It was on this principle that king Heze- 
kiah, in order to arrest the invasive movements of Sennacherib, 
" stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst 
of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come and find 
much water f n 2 Chron. xxxii, 4. Surely no one will allow that the 
Assyrian king needed " much water " for the purpose of baptizing his 
soldiers. 

But is it indeed true, that there was at iEnon that quantity or col- 
lection of water which immersionists seem to suppose? They have 
harped so long and loudly upon the u much water" of iEnon that many 
have magnified it into the notion of an extensive lake or mighty river. 



580 baptism. [Book VL 

But will any one tell us where these swelling floods are to be found ? 
Will he point to some ancient or modern geographer who has described 
this great water? Josephus, who was coeval with the apostles, and 
who notices almost every fountain or water of any magnitude in the 
Holy Land, does not say a word respecting ^Enon in any of his writ- 
ings. This evidently shows that, in his day, it was a place of but 
little notoriety, and unnoticed for its waters, except in the passage 
under consideration. Accordingly, of all the modern travelers who 
have visited the place, no one has ever discovered a lake or river, 
or anything more than what is common to a well or fountain of 
water. 

The meaning of the terms employed in the original is in perfect 
accordance with these facts. ^Enon is derived from the Hebrew aylnt, 
the eye, and signifies, according to Parkhurst and others, a well, a fount- 
ain, or a spring of water. In the Greek phrase hudata polla, which 
is rendered "much water," both terms are plural, and signify, not 
"much water," but many waters ; conveying the idea of many fountains 
or springs, rather than a great quantity of water. The use of polla in 
the sense of many 'is very common in the New Testament. Thus, 
Matthew xiii, 3 : " And he spake (polla, not much, but) many things 
unto them." Mark i, 34 : "And cast out (polla) many devils." John 
viii, 26 : "I have (polla) many things to say." Acts ii, 43 : " And 
(polla) many wonders and signs were done." Revelation i, 15 : "And 
his voice as the sound of (hudaton pollon) ?nany waters." We are, 
therefore, safe in the conclusion that iEnon did not contain a large 
quantity of water, and that it was insufficient for the numerous immer- 
sions which are supposed to have taken place in it. But immersionists 
argue the correctness of their theory, 

3. From those passages of Scripture which speak of baptism as a 
burial. — " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with 
him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
ness of life." Rom. vi, 3, 4. And again : " Buried with him in baptism, 
wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation 
of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Col. ii, 12. 

The argument for immersion which is drawn from these passages 
rests entirely upon the words " buried with him by or in baptism." It 
is assumed that the apostle is here speaking of water baptism, and that 
he defines the mode by comparing it to a burial. Assuming these 
things, and supposing that there is a striking similarity between an 
immersion in water and the burial of our Lord, immersionists infer 
that theirs is the only true mode of baptism. The inference, however, 
rests on mere assumptions, for which there is not the least shadow of 
proof. 



Chap. 3, § 3.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 581 

Those who suppose the apostle to speak of water baptism as a burial, 
and consequently by immersion, must admit the following consequences : 
1. That it is possible for persons to be dipped or plunged " into Jesus 
Christ," or " into his death." 2. That St. Paul and those to whom he 
wrote were at that very time living in the watery grave ; for he does 
not say, we were buried, but " we are buried with him by baptism." 
Is it possible for a person to be buried and exhumed at the same time ? 

3. That if the burial of which the apostle speaks is a baptism, then one 
baptism is made to perform another ; for " we are buried by baptism y" 
or in other words, and in Baptist language, we are immersed by an 
immersion. Thus, one immersion is made to perform the other. 

4. That the term death is only another name for water / for the text 
says, " we are buried by baptism into death." Is there no difference 
between water and death? 5. That our Lord himself is immersed with 
each one of his disciples, and rises with him from the watery grave ; 
for " we are buried with him in baptism," and " are risen with him.'''' 
And, 6. That those who are immersed rise from the water by an exer- 
cise of faith, and not by the arm of the administrator ; for the apostle 
says, that in baptism we " are risen through the faith of the operation 
of God." If these consequences are absurd and ridiculous, so is that 
theory of which they are the legitimate results. 

But there is really no analogy between immersion and the burial of 
Christ. Indeed, it can hardly be supposed that any one would ever 
have thought of such analogy had he not taken the idea from the 
modern mode of burial. The grave in which our Lord was buried was 
a tomb or vault hewn out of a rock, having a door or way of entrance, 
and being of sufficient capacity to contain several persons. Accord- 
ingly, the women that came to embalm his body, and the angel 
that appeared to them, were all in it at the same time. (See Mark 
xvi, 1, 5.) The floor of it must have been on a level with the surface 
of the earth, or only a little below it. Hence we are told, John xx, 5, 
that one of the disciples " stooping down and looking in, saw the linen 
clothes." 

In this house for the dead our Lord was quietly laid by at least two 
of his disciples ; and there he remained until the morning of the third 
day, when he rose from the grave by his own power, and not by the 
power of those who buried him. Moreover, the disciples who placed 
our Lord in the tomb must themselves have gone into it in performing 
their solemn office, for we cannot suppose that they rudely cast him into 
it while they remained without. We conclude, therefore, from all these 
facts, that he who can see any analogy between a burial under these 
circumstances, and the plunging of a person into a lake or river, after 
the manner of Baptist immersions, must possess the wonderful faculty 
of discerning that which has no existence. Were we to carry our 
neighbor to the grave, cover him up in it, the next moment raise him 



582 baptism. [Book VI. 

out of it, take him home with us, and then declare that he is buried, 
would not such a transaction be most ridiculous ? And yet this is the 
only kind of burial to which baptism by immersion bears any resem- 
blance. 

We conclude, therefore, from a careful examination of the whole sub- 
ject, that in the passages under consideration the apostle has no allusion 
whatever either to water baptism itself or to its mode ; but that he is 
speaking of a spiritual deaths burial, resurrection, and life. He inquires, 
Romans vi, 2 : " How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer 
therein ?" and in this question he gives us a key to the whole passage, 
" dead to sin." And, therefore, being thus " dead to sin," we should 
not " continue in sin" " Know ye not that so many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ?" that is, " so 
many of us as were " united to Jesus Christ by the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit were made partakers of the benefits of his death. " For by one 
Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 1 Cor. xii, 13. This moral 
change by which believers are united to Christ, and constituted living 
branches in " the True Vine," includes in it a death to sin, a burial of 
" the old man," and a resurrection from spiritual death to a new life of 
holy obedience. " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death ;" that is, as Christ was buried in the grave, so we, by the bap- 
tism of the Spirit, are brought into this state of death to sin, " that like 
as Christ was raised up from, the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
so we also should walk in newness of life." 

Indeed, the whole argument of the apostle shows that he is speaking 
of the work of the Spirit, and not of water baptism. " For if we have 
been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in 
the likeness of his resurrection : knowing this, that our old man is cruci- 
fied with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth 
we should not serve sin." And again, "Likewise reckon ye yourselves 
also to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus 
Christ our Lord." Can water baptism accomplish the moral change of 
which the apostle is here speaking ? Surely no one will affirm this, 
unless he has adopted the wild notion that " immersion is the regener- 
ating act." 

In regard to Colossians ii, 12, it is only necessary to say that it is a 
parallel passage to Romans vi, 4. "Buried with him in baptism, 
wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation 
of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The meaning evidently 
is that as Christ was buried in the grave, so we, by the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit, are also buried — " our old man " being crucified, and " the 
body of sin " being destroyed ; and that as Christ was " raised up from 
the dead," so we, by this same baptism, and " through the faith of the 
operation of God," are risen to a new and spiritual life. 

Having noticed the leading arguments of immersionists in support of 



Chap. 3, § 3.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 583 

their theory, and having shown that they fail, to establish the doctrine 
which they are brought to prove, we will proceed, 

II. To ADDUCE AEGUMENTS TO PEOVE THAT AEFTTSION IS THE SCEIP- 
TUEAL MODE OF BAPTISM. 

This will be established beyond every reasonable doubt if we con- 
sider, 

1. That affusion is the only mode which is suited to universal prac- 
tice. — The apostolic commission provides for the baptism of " all nations ;" 
but men may exist, repent, and believe under circumstances in which 
immersion is utterly impossible. It would be impossible, for instance, to 
immerse the inhabitants of a sandy desert/ of a besieged city, within 
which there was great scarcity of water ; of many countries in the time 
of great drouth ; or of the more northern regions during the severity of 
'winter. Some are brought to true repentance and faith in Christ on a 
sick and dying bed, when, to all human appearance, to immerse them 
would be instant death. Must they, nevertheless, be plunged into a lake 
or river ? Does God require murder for sacrifice ? Shall we not rather 
conclude that the God of wisdom, who has commanded his ministers to 
baptize all nations, would adopt a mode which can be employed under 
all circumstances ? But we remark, 

2. That affusion is supported by the history of baptism as recorded 
in the New Testament. — We have already shown that the circumstances 
of John's baptism do not afford the least evidence in support of immer- 
sion. But a further consideration of this subject will convince every 
impartial reader that, in the baptism which he administered, immersion 
was impracticable, and that, consequently, he must have baptized by 
affusion. Let us notice, 

(1.) The length of his ministry. By carefully following the evangeli- 
cal history we shall arrive at a reasonable certainty that it could not 
have been continued longer than about nine months. The facts are 
these : At the time of our Lord's baptism John had been officiating 
about six months. Jesus, after he was baptized, went immediately into 
Galilee, where, on the third day after his arrival, he attended the mar- 
riage at Cana; John ii, 1. "After this he went down to Capernaum, 
and continued there not many days ;" verse 12. He thence " went up 
to Jerusalem," to attend the Passover; verse 13. Leaving the city of 
Jerusalem, he went out into the country of Judea, and baptized ; chap- 
ter iii, 22. At this time "John also was baptizing in iEnon, near 
to Salim ;" verse 23. When our "Lord knew how the Pharisees 
had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John . . . 
he left Judea, and departed again into Galilee;" chapter iv, 1, 3. 
But it was not until " he had heard that John was cast into prison." 
Matt, iv, 12. 

We conclude, therefore, that John was arrested while at iEnon, 
shortly after the passover to which we have referred, or in the latter 



584 baptism. [Book VI. 

part of March, A. D. 27, and only about nine months after he had 
commenced his public ministry. That his ministerial career was of 
longer duration cannot be proved from the Scriptures. But let us now 
turn our attention, 

(2.) To the number that must have received John's baptism. The 
inspired record is, " Then went out ^o him Jerusalem, and all Judea, 
and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in 
Jordan." Matt, iii, 5, 6. Now, according to Josephus, there were then 
not less than five millions of people in the land of Judea ; and it would 
be a very moderate calculation to suppose that at least one fifth of them 
were baptized by John. But is it possible that he could have immersed 
so many in the short period of nine months ? This would have required 
him to immerse at least three thousand seven hundred persons per day, 
which is utterly impossible without an absolute miracle. But as John's 
baptism was a kind of ceremonial purifying, as we learn from John iii, 
25, it was perfectly easy to accomplish his work in the given time by 
taking a bunch of hyssop, according to the Jewish custom, and baptiz- 
ing the people by sprinkling, as Moses baptized the congregation of 
Israel. (Heb. ix, 19.) 

But let us now consider the baptisms that occurred under the admin- 
istration of the apostles. The first instance is that of the three thousand 
who were baptized on the day of Pentecost in the city of Jerusalem. 
" Then they that gladly received his word were baptized ; and the same 
day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 
ii, 41. Is there any evidence that these three thousand persons were 
immersed'? There certainly is not; but the very reverse is evident 
from all the circumstances of the case. 

(1.) The time was too short for twelve men to immerse so many. It 
was the third hour of the day, or nine o'clock, when Peter began his 
discourse. This, together with the subsequent transactions which are 
recorded, and the examination of the three thousand candidates for bap- 
tism, could not have occupied less than four hours, and then only five 
hours of the day remained in which to baptize them. Could each of the 
apostles have immersed two hundred and fifty persons in five hours ? 
The thing is perfectly incredible. 

We know some have said that they were not all baptized on the same 
day ; but this, being a direct contradiction of the word of God, merits 
no reply. Others assert that the seventy disciples assisted the apostles 
on the occasion ; but there is just as much evidence to prove that they 
were assisted by the scribes and the Pharisees. It has been asserted also 
that affusion requires as much time as immersion ; but this, to every 
impartial mind, is its own refutation. 

(2.) It is impossible that suitable places could have been found in the 
city of Jerusalem for the immersion of so great a multitude. Immer- 
sionists tell us that John was under the necessity of going to Jordan or 



Chap. 3, § 3.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 585 

iEnon in order to find water in sufficient quantity to immerse his dis- 
ciples. But all at once, in their imagination, Jerusalem is so well sup- 
plied with water that the apostles, in the course of five or six hours, 
could immerse three thousand persons. If this is true, their "much 
water " argument falls to the ground ; for if so many, in so short a 
time, could be immersed in the city of Jerusalem, it was surely unnec- 
essary for all her inhabitants to make a journey of more than twenty 
miles in order to be immersed by John in Jordan. 

But it is not true that the city was thus supplied with water. There 
was no river nigher than Jordan, which was some twenty-five miles 
distant ; nor was there in its vicinity any fountain, except that of Siloam, 
or any stream of water, except the brook Kedron, which was always 
dry at the time of Pentecost. Harmer says, " that pure water, and such 
as people might drink, was exceedingly scarce and precious in Jerusa- 
lem and its vicinity ; what the inhabitants procured for use being pre- 
served with the utmost care in domestic reservoirs, made at great 
expense, and filled chiefly by the rains and snows which fell in the wet 
and winter seasons."* It cannot, therefore, be supposed, without great 
extravagance, that the three thousand were immersed. But, 

(3.) If there had been a sufficient number of bathing places in Jerusa- 
lem for the immersion of so many, is it at all probable that they could 
have been obtained for the purpose of Christian baptism ? It certainly 
is not ; for those in power, and the leading men in general, were vio- 
lently opposed to the apostles and to the Christian religion. Can we 
suppose that the very men who a few days before had " killed the 
Lord of life and glory," and were then persecuting his followers, would 
offer the apostles the use of the brazen sea, and of their private baths 
and reservoirs, in order to serve the Christian cause ? The supposition 
would be absurd in the extreme. And, 

(4.) Besides all this, it must not be forgotten that neither the apos- 
tles nor the assembled multitude expected the ordinance of baptism to 
be administered on the occasion, and hence no preparations had been 
made for such an event. It is, therefore, highly improbable that those 
who were baptized had with them changes of raiment ; and to immerse 
them in their ordinary garments, when no such change could be pro- 
cured, would have produced in many certain disease, and in some, at 
least, premature death. Had they been immersed, such a change of 
clothing would, therefore, have been indispensable ; unless, as some 
have supposed, they were immersed naked. 

But if they had even possessed the necessary change of raiment, 
where could the change have been made ? Surely not in the presence 
of a promiscuous multitude of males and females. And yet not a word 
is said about suitable apartments at the pools in Jerusalem, in which 
men and women might separately change their clothing ; but the whole 
*Harmer 1 s Observations, chap. 1, article 21, 



586 baptism. [Book VI. 

account seems to proceed on the principle that they heard the dis- 
course of Peter, became truly penitent and were baptized, without ever 
leaving the place in which they had assembled. If, then, we take all 
these circumstances together, we can come to no other conclusion than 
that the three thousand who were admitted to the fellowship of the 
Church on the day of Pentecost were baptized by affusion. 

In the eighth chapter of Acts we have an account of the baptism of 
the Ethiopian eunuch, which is the only case under the administration 
of the apostles in which baptism took place at a stream of water, and 
in which the candidate is said to have gone down into the water for that 
purpose. It is, therefore, a case on which immersionists greatly rely ; 
but an examination of its attendant circumstances will show that it 
affords no evidence in support of their theory. "We have, on a previous 
page, met the argument which immersionists draw from the use of the 
Greek prepositions eis and ek, the former of which is here rendered 
into, and the latter out of. We have shown that the phrases " eis to 
hudor " and " ek tou hudatos " may be justly rendered, to the water, 
and from the water, without conveying any idea at all of being in the 
water. It is, therefore, only necessary to inquire, 

(1.) Whether the "certain water" spoken of by the sacred writer 
was of sufficient depth for immersion. The phrase " epi ti hudor," 
" unto a certain water" may be as correctly, and even more correctly 
rendered to some water, or to a little water, ti having sometimes a 
diminutive sense. Again, the phrase " see here is water," is in the 
original " idou hudor," behold water ! and is evidently the language 
of emotion, showing the surprise of the eunuch at finding water so 
unexpectedly. He does not say, " See, here is a river," or " here is 
much water," but " Behold water," without any reference to its quan- 
tity or depth. But what is the testimony of travelers in regard to this 
matter ? Jerome, Sandys, and others tell us that no stream can be 
found in those parts which is at any time more than ankle deep ; and 
consequently, none deep enough for immersion. But, 

(2.) What was there in the text, and in the sermon of Philip, that 
could have directed the mind of the eunuch to the subject of baptism ? 
There was nothing in the text, so far as we can see, except the clause, 
" So shall he sprinkle many nations." Isa. lii, 15. It was from that por- 
tion of Scripture with which this passage stands connected that Philip 
"preached unto him Jesus;" and it is but reasonable to conclude that, 
in his exposition of the prophecy, he called the attention of the eunuch 
to this clause as well as to others. But in what manner does Christ 
sprinkle the nations ? Doubtless by the efficacy of his atoning blood, 
of which water baptism is the appointed symbol. If by this means the 
eunuch arrived at a knowledge of the ordinance of baptism, (and the 
history points out no other,) it is not to be supposed that he made so 
egregious a blunder as to substitute immersion for sprinkling, which is 



Chap. 3, § 3.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 587 

so clearly spoken of in the text. All the circumstances of the case 
unite, therefore, in proving that the eunuch must have been baptized 
by affusion. 

We come to consider, in the next place, the baptism of Saul of Tarsus. 
This is recorded in Acts ix, 18 : "And he received sight forthwith, and 
arose and was baptized." What evidence have we that Saul was 
immersed ? Why, there was a river near Damascus, and, therefore, he 
must have been baptized in this manner. Wonderful logic this ! We 
might as well argue, that because London lies upon the Thames, there- 
fore all the ministers in that vast city baptize by immersion. 

Some think that the phrase " wash away thy sins " refers to water bap- 
tism, and points out the mode to be that of immersion. But besides the 
absurdity of supposing that sin can be washed away by water, this wild 
notion is refuted by the obvious meaning of the phrase in connection 
with the context. The language of Ananias is, "Arise and be bap- 
tized ; and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord Jesus." 
It was not, then, by the water of baptism that his sins were to be 
washed away, but by calling on that Saviour who alone can wash " us 
from our sins in his own blood." 

But let us now inquire whether the circumstances in this case afford 
any light in regard to the mode of baptism. When Ananias found Saul 
in the house of Judas he seems to have been, perhaps from long fasting 
and penitential sorrow, confined to his bed or couch ; for when he was 
restored to sight he "looked up upon" Ananias. Acts xxii, 13. As 
soon as Ananias had delivered to him his message he " arose and was 
baptized." Not a word is said about leaving the house, o\ going to the 
water ; and it would be the conclusion of every impartial reader, that 
he was baptized in the room where Ananias found him. But this is not 
all. The language of the inspired penman directs our attention to the 
very attitude in which he received the ordinance. The words of the 
original are dvaardg e(3a7rrlo67] ; literally, standing up he was baptized. 
It is, therefore, as clear as language can make it, that Saul was baptized 
in an erect position ; and as this occurred in the very place where 
Ananias first saw him, he must have been baptized by affusion. 

In Acts x, 47, 48, we have an account of the baptism of Cornelius 
and his friends. " Can any man forbid water," said Peter, " that these 
should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as 
we ? and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." 
Here we may remark, 1 . That when Peter entered into the house of 
Cornelius he "found many that were come together." 2. That they did 
not leave the house to go in search of water, but were evidently bap- 
tized in the same place where the Holy Ghost fell on them. And, 
3. That the language of Peter proves that the baptismal water was to be 
brought to them, instead of their being taken to the water. " Can any 
man forbid water ?" — that is, to be brought, and that, too, in a reason- 



588 BAPTISM. [Book VI. 

able way. No one could be so awfully stupid as to suppose that Peter 
intended to have a cistern of water brought into the house in order that 
the candidates might be immersed. Judging, then, from all the facts 
in the case, we are compelled to conclude that Cornelius and his friends 
were baptized by affusion. 

The last case which we will notice in this connection is that of the 
jailer and his family. This case of baptism, and its attendant circum- 
stances, are recorded in Acts xvi, 24-34. To place the matter in its 
true light it may be necessary to notice a few particulars, all of which 
are clearly sustained by the history. And, 1. The jail itself consisted of 
at least two apartments, the outer or common prison, and what is called 
" the inner prison ;" verse 24. 2. The house of the jailer was either a 
part of the prison building, or joined to it, so that from its door or win- 
dow the prison doors were in full view ; for when the jailer awoke he 
saw " the prison doors open ;" verse 27. 3. There was light in the house 
of the jailer, but none in the inner prison ; for though he saw the prison 
doors open, he could not discern the prisoners, and supposed, therefore, 
that they had fled. But they could see him, for when he was about to 
kill himself, " Paul cried out, Do thyself no harm ; for we are all here ;" 
verses 27, 28. 4. "Then he called for a light, and sprang in" to the 
inner prison, and " brought them out " to the outer or common prison ; 
verses 29, 30. 5. Here it was that the jailer made the inquiry, "Sirs, 
what must I do to be saved ?" Here Paul preached Christ unto him ; 
and it was here, and nowhere else, that he and his family were baptized ; 
verses 30-33. 

To suppose that the parties left the prison for the purpose of attend- 
ing to the ordinance is to suppose, 1. That the jailer was baptized 
while wickedly violating the laws of his country and the most sacred 
duty of his office. 2. That Paul and Silas encouraged him in this open 
violation of law, and were therefore no better than he. And, 3. That 
they hypocritically pretended, when morning came, that they had not 
been out of the prison, for they refused to leave it until the magistrates 
should come and take them out; verse 37. These suppositions being 
evidently absurd, it necessarily follows that the jailer and his family 
were baptized in the prison ; and as it does not appear that there was 
in the prison any convenience for immersion, the conclusion is that they 
were baptized by affusion. That this is the true scriptural mode of 
baptism may be argued, 

3. From its emblematical import. — It is " an outward and visible 
sign of an inward and spiritual grace." It symbolizes the cleansing effi- 
cacy of the blood of Christ, and the regenerating influences of the Holy 
Spirit. These Gospel blessings are constantly spoken of under the fig- 
ure of sprinkling or pouring, but never under that of immersion. Thus 
Isaiah, in speaking of the glorious effects that should follow the sufferings 
of Christ, says, "So shall he sprinkle many nations." Isa. lii, 15. This 



Chap. 3, § 3.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 589 

promise must relate either to the gracious influences which Christ 
bestows upon the nations of the earth, "through the redemption of his 
blood," called " the blood of sprinkling" or to the admission of men into 
his visible Church by the ordinance of baptism. If to the former, these 
gracious influences are designated by the term " sprinkle" to which bap- 
tism, the outward sign, should surely correspond ; but if to the latter, it 
fixes the mode of baptism to be by affusion, and not by immersion. 
The prophet does not say, " So shall he " immerse " many nations." 

We have a similar promise, but one which is still more definite, in 
Ezekiel xxxvi, 25 : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye 
shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I 
cleanse you." This passage, which doubtless refers to Gospel times, 
marks most distinctly both the purifying influence of Divine grace upon 
the heart, " from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse 
you," and the outward sign of this inward grace, "then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you." St. Paul, in addressing the Hebrew Christians, 
who were well acquainted with the prophetic Scriptures, refers, no 
doubt, to this very promise. " Let us draw near with a true heart, in 
full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
science, and our bodies washed with pure water" Heb. x, 22. By the 
phrase, " our bodies washed with pure water," the apostle refers to their 
Christian baptism, which was the fulfillment of the promise, " then will 
I sprinkle clean water upon you." 

The New Testament Scriptures speak of the cleansing effects of the 
blood of Christ under the idea of sprinkling. Hence St. Paul says that 
we are come " to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things 
than that of Abel." Heb. xii, 24. St. Peter also speaks of the " spyrink- 
ling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter i, 2. But if our moral cleans- 
ing by the blood of Christ is called a sprinkling by the pen of inspira- 
tion, we have in this very fact a strong indication that the outward 
ordinance which is intended to be symbolical of this inward cleansing 
should be administered by affusion. 

The manner in which the baptism of the Spirit is spoken of in the 
sacred Scriptures should settle forever the mode of Christian baptism. 
As the baptism of the Spirit is the real and essential baptism, and 
water baptism only figurative or symbolical, the mode of the former 
must, in all fairness, determine the mode of the latter. What, then, 
is the mode of the baptism of the Spirit ? We will let inspiration 
answer the question. 

"Behold, I will pour out my Spirit unto you." Prov. i, 23. "I will 
pour my Spirit upon thy seed." Isa. xliv, 3. "I will pour out my Spirit 
upon all flesh ; and also upon the servants, and upon the handmaidens 
in those days will I pour out my Spirit." Joel ii, 28, 29. This predic- 
tion was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the disciples were " all 
filled with Holy Ghost, and began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit 



590 THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Book VI. 

gave them utterance." Acts ii, 4. And the apostle says that Christ 
" having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath 
shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." Verse 33. 

While Peter was preaching to those who were assembled in the house 
of Cornelius, " the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word ;" 
and Peter's companions were astonished, " because on the Gentiles also 
was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts x, 44, 45. When on 
another occasion Peter is rehearsing this event, he says, " As I began to 
speak, the Holy Ghost fell on all them, as on us at the beginning ;" 
that is, on the day of Pentecost. " Then remembered I the word of the 
Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost." Acts xi, 15, 16. Here, then, let it 
be observed that the gift of the Holy Spirit is, by Divine authority, 
declared to be a baptism, and that the mode of this baptism is that of 
affusion. 

We have now shown, beyond successful controversy, that there is not 
a solitary proof in the Bible for immersion; that the circumstances 
connected with the administration of baptism, as recorded in the New 
Testament, are all in favor of affusion; and that the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit, of which water baptism is the symbol, is denned, in regard 
to its mode, by the phrases pour out, pour upon, shed forth, and fell on. 
It is, therefore, clear as a mathematical demonstration, that affusion is 
the scriptural mode of Christian baptism. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 



Having considered at some length the nature, the subjects, and the 
mode of baptism, we shall now proceed to examine the other sacra- 
mental ordinance of the Christian Church — the Lord^s supper. 

This sacrament is called the Lord^s supper because the Lord himself 
appointed it, and because it was first instituted in the evening, and at 
the close of the paschal supper. It is called the communion, as herein 
we hold communion with Christ and with his people. It is also called 
the eucharist, a thanksgiving, because Christ, in the institution of it, 
gave thanks ; and because we, in the participation of it, are required to 
be thankful. 

Baptism and the Lord's supper agree in the following respects : " The 
author of .both is God ; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his bene- 
fits ; both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by minis- 



Chap. 4.] THE LOKD'S SUPPER. 591 

ters of the Gospel and by none other, and to be continued in the Church 
of Christ until his second coming." Their difference is, " that baptism 
is to be administered but once with water, to be a sign and seal of our 
regeneration and engrafting into Christ, and that even to infants ; 
whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements 
of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourish- 
ment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, 
and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine them- 
selves."* 

In the further examination of this subject we propose to consider, 
1. The institution of the ordinance ; 2. Its perpetual obligation ; and, 
3. Its nature ; and then to conclude the chapter by a few general 
observations. 

I. The institution op the ordinance. 

As baptism was substituted for circumcision, so the Lord's supper 
was placed by our Saviour in the room of the Passover. This Jewish 
sacrament was an eminent type of the sacrificial death of our Lord for 
the redemption of man. But since he was about to fulfill the symboli- 
cal rite which from age to age had continued to exhibit him to the faith 
and hope of ancient saints, it could have no place under the new dispen- 
sation. Christ in person became the true Passover ; and a new rite was 
necessary to commemorate the spiritual deliverance of men, and to con- 
firm its benefits. 

The circumstances attending the original institution of the Christian 
eucharist were deeply impressive. Our Lord was on the point of closing 
his life by an ignominious and agonizing death. He was just entering 
on the bloody conflict, and having assembled his disciples to partake of 
his last supper, he apprized them of his approaching departure, and 
delivered to them appropriate instructions for their own private consola- 
tion, and for the public discharge of their ministry. At that solemn 
moment, with the typical representation of his sacrifice before them, 
" He took bread," the bread then on the table, " and when he had 
given thanks, he brake it and said, Take, eat ; this is my body, which 
is broken for you ; this do in remembrance of me. After the same 
manner also he took the cup when he had supped, saying, This cup is 
the New Testament in my blood ; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it in 
remembrance of me ;" or, as it is expressed by St. Matthew, " And he 
took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye 
all of it ; for this is my blood of the ISTew Testament, which is shed for 
many for the remission of sins." 1 Cor. xi, 23-25 ; Matt, xxvi, 27, 28. 

II. Its perpetual obligation. 

That the Lord's supper was intended to be a standing rite in the 
Christian Church, and not a temporary institution, to be confined to the 
disciples then present, is evident from the testimony of St. Paul respect- 
* Larger Catechism; answer to questions 176, 177. 



592 THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Book VL 

ing it, as recorded in 1 Corinthians xi, 23-26. From this passage we 
learn, 

1. That the apostle received a special revelation as to this ordinance, 
which must have had a higher object than the mere commemoration of 
a historical fact, and must be supposed to have been made for the pur- 
pose of enjoining it upon him to establish this rite in the Churches 
raised up by him, and of enabling him rightly to understand its authority 
and purport, where he found it already appointed by the founders of 
the first Churches. 

2. That the command of Christ, "This do in remembrance of me," 
which was originally given to the disciples present with our Lord at the 
last Passover, is laid upon St. Paul and upon the Corinthians. This is, 
therefore, in proof of the perpetuation of the ordinance. And, 

3. That the apostle regarded the Lord's supper as a rite to be fre- 
quently celebrated, and that in all future time, until the Lord himself 
should come to judge the world. " For as often as ye eat this bread, 
and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." The 
perpetual obligation of this ordinance cannot, therefore, be reasonably 
disputed. 

III. The nature of the Lord's .supper. 

Of the nature of this great and affecting rite of Christianity different 
and very opposite opinions have been formed, arising partly from the 
elliptical and figurative modes of expression adopted by Christ at its 
institution, but more especially from the influence of superstition upon 
some, and the extreme of affected rationalism upon others. We will 
first present a brief statement of the leading theories in regard to the 
nature of this ordinance, and then establish its true sacramental char- 
acter. 

1. Theories respecting the nature of the Lord's supper. — Of these we 
notice, 

(1.) The doctrine of transubstantiation. — It is conceived by those who 
hold this doctrine that the words, " This is my body, this is my blood," 
are to be taken in their most literal sense ; that when our Lord pro- 
nounced these words he changed, by his almighty power, the bread upon 
the table into his body and the wine into his blood, and really delivered 
his body and blood into the hands of the apostles ; and that at all times 
when the Lord's supper is administered, the priest, by pronouncing these 
words with a good intention, has the power of making a similar change. 
They conceive further, that the bread and wine thus changed are pre- 
sented by the priest to God as a sacrifice ; which, though it is distin- 
guished from all others by being without the shedding of blood, is a true 
propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the living. It is con- 
ceived that the materials of this sacrifice, being truly the body and blood 
of Christ, possess an intrinsic virtue, which does not depend upon the dis- 
position of him who receive them, but operates immediately upon all 



Chap. 4.] THE LORD'S SUPPER. 593 

who do not obstruct the operation by a mortal sin. It is conceived, 
moreover, that as the elements of the supper, when converted into the 
body and blood of Christ, are natural objects of reverence and adora- 
tion to Christians, it is highly proper to worship them upon the altar ; 
and that it is expedient to carry them about in solemn procession, that 
they may receive the homage of all who meet them. 

This monstrous theory of the Church of Rome is as contradictory to 
the holy Scriptures, whose words it professes to receive in their literal 
meaning, as it is revolting to the senses and reason of mankind. Had it 
not been for the ignorance and superstition of Europe during the mid- 
dle ages this perversion of the rite could not have been effected ; and 
even then it was not established as an article of faith without many 
struggles. Almost all writers on the Protestant controversy will furnish a 
sufficient confutation of this capital attempt to impose upon the credu- 
lity of mankind ; and to them, should it need any refutation, the reader 
may be referred. 

(2.) Consubstantiation. — This is the designation of that theory which 
was adopted by Luther respecting the presence of Christ in the Lord's 
supper. He denied that the elements were changed by consecration, 
and therefore taught that the bread and wine remairied the same, but 
that with them the body and blood of Christ were really present in this 
sacrament, and were literally received by the communicants. Some of 
his immediate followers did not, however, admit more on this point 
than that the body and blood of Christ were really present in the sacra- 
ment ; but that the manner of that presence was an inexplicable mys- 
tery. But we notice, 

(3.) That theory which regards the Lord's supper as merely an 
impressive commemorative rite. — Carolostadt, a professor with Luther in 
the University of Wittenberg, and Zuinglius, a native of Switzerland, 
the founder of the Protestant Churches which are not Lutheran, 
taught that the bread and the wine in the Lord's supper are the signs 
of the absent body and blood of Christ; that when Jesus said, 
" This is my body, this is my blood," he employed a common figure 
of speech, in which the sign is put for the thing signified. Thus the 
Lord's supper is regarded as a mere religious commemoration of the 
death of Christ, with this addition, that it has a natural fitness to pro- 
duce salutary emotions, to possess our minds with religious reflections, 
and to strengthen virtuous resolutions. 

This is the view of the subject which is generally entertained by 
Socinians ; and though it avoids the absurdities of transubstantiation, 
and escapes the difficulties in which the theory of Luther is involved, 
yet, with much truth, it falls short of the whole truth. Hence we pre- 
sent as the true theory, 

(4.) The opinion of the Reformed Churches, as taught by Calvin. — 
" As he agreed with Zuinglius, in thinking that the bread and wine were 

38 



594 THE LOED'S SUPPER. [Book VI. 

the signs of the body and blood of Christ, which were not locally pres- 
ent, he renounced both transubstantiation and consubstantiation. He 
agreed further with Zuinglius, in thinking that the use of these signs, 
being a memorial of the sacrifice once offered on the cross, was intended 
to produce a moral effect. But he taught that to all who remember the 
death of Christ in a proper manner, Christ, by the use of these signs, is 
spiritually present — present to their minds ; and he considered this spir- 
itual presence as giving a significancy that goes far beyond the Socinian 
sense to these words of St. Paul : ' The cup of blessing which we bless, is 
it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, 
is it not the communion of the body of Christ V It is not the blessing pro- 
nounced which makes any change upon the cup ; but to all who join 
with becoming affection in the thanksgiving then uttered, in the name 
of the congregation, Christ is spiritually present, so that they may 
truly and emphatically be said to be partakers of his body and 
blood ; because his body and blood being spiritually present, convey the 
same nourishment to their souls, the same quickening to the spiritual 
life, as bread and wine do to the natural life. According to this system 
the full benefit of the Lord's supper is peculiar to those who partake 
worthily. For while all who eat the bread and drink the wine may be 
said to show the Lord's death, and may also receive some devout 
impressions, they only to whom Jesus is spiritually present share in that 
spiritual nourishment which arises from partaking of Ms body and 
blood."* But that we may understand more fully the nature and 
importance of this ordinance, let us consider, 

2. Its true sacramental character. — The Lord's supper is more than 
a commemorative rite. It is a commemorative rite sacramentally ; in 
other words, it is a commemorative sign and seal of the covenant of our 
redemption. It is, 

(1.) A sign. — As such it exhibits, 1. The infinite love of God to the 
world in giving " his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 2. The love of Christ 
who " died the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." 
3. The extreme nature of his sufferings, which were unto death. 4. The 
vicarious and sacrificial character of that death as a sin-offering and a 
propitiation, in virtue of which only a covenant of grace was entered 
into with man by the offended God. 5. The benefits derived from it 
through believing — "remission of sins," the nourishment of the soul in 
spiritual life, and its growth and perfection in holiness. 

(2.) It is a seal. — As such it is, 1. A constant assurance, on the part 
of God, of the continuance of his covenant of redemption in full and 
undiminished force from age to., age. 2. It is a pledge to every believ- 
ing penitent who receives this sacrament, with entire reliance on the 
merits of Christ's passion for forgiveness, that he is an object of merci- 

* Hill's Lectures. 



Chap. 4.] THE LORD'S SUPPER. 595 

ful regard and acceptance. 3. It is a constant exhibition of Christ as 
the food of the soul, to be received by faith. 4. It is an assurance of the 
bestowment of all the blessings of the new covenant, both in regard to 
this life and to that which is to come. 

In every celebration of the Lord's supper, the sign of all these gra- 
cious acts, provisions, and hopes is exhibited, and God condescends thus 
to repeat his pledges of faithfulness and love to his Church. On the 
other hand, the members of the Church renew their acceptance of the 
covenant of grace ; they publish their faith in Christ ; they glory in his 
cross, his sacrificial though shameful death, as the wisdom of God and 
the power of God ; and they feast by faith on Christ, the true Passover 
with Joy and thanksgiving, on account of their great deliverance. 

IV. We will conclude with a few general observations. 

1. The very nature of this ordinance excludes from a participation in 
it not only open unbelievers, but all who reject the doctrine of atone- 
ment by the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ. If the Lord's sup- 
per is something more than a mere commemoration of the fact of Christ's 
death ; if it recognizes the sacrificial character of his death, and the doc- 
trine- of " faith in his blood," as necessary to our salvation, this is " an 
altar of which they have no right to eat" who reject these doctrines. 

2. It is equally clear that persons who have never truly repented, and 
have no desire for salvation according to the terms of the Gospel, are 
utterly disqualified to partake at " the table of the Lord." They would 
eat and drink unworthily, and would therefore fall into condemnation. 
Such persons are expressly prohibited from communicating with the 
Church by apostolic authority as well as by the original institution of 
this sacrament, which was confined to Christ's disciples ; and ministers 
would be partakers of " other men's sins " if they were knowingly to 
admit to the supper of the Lord those who in their spirit and lives deny 
him. 

3. On the other hand, the table of the Lord is not to be surrounded 
with superstitious terrors. To it all are welcome to come who truly 
love Christ, and all who sincerely desire to love, serve, and obey him. 
All truly penitent persons, all who take Christ as the sole foundation of 
their hope, and are ready to commit their eternal interests to the merits 
of his sacrifice and intercession, are to be encouraged to " draw near 
with faith, and to take this holy sacrament to their comfort." In it God 
visibly exhibits and confirms his covenant to them, and he invites them 
to become parties to it, by the act of their receiving the elements of the 
sacrament in faith. 

4. For the frequency of celebrating this ordinance we have no rule in 
the New Testament. The early Christians observed it every Sabbath, 
and exclusion from it was considered a severe sentence of the Church 
when only temporary. The expression of the apostle, " as often as ye 
eat this bread," intimates that the practice of communion was frequent ; 



596 THE LORD'S supper. [Book VI. 

and perhaps the custom of monthly administration will come up to the 
spirit of the original institution. That it was designed, like the Passover, 
to be an annual celebration only, has no evidence from Scripture, and is 
contradicted by the most ancient practice. 

5. The habitual neglect of this ordinance by persons who profess a 
true faith in Christ is highly censurable. In this case a plain command 
of Christ is violated, though not perhaps with direct intention ; and the 
benefit of this singularly affecting means of grace is lost, in which our 
Saviour renews to us the pledges of his love, repeats the promises of his 
covenant, and calls for invigorated exercises of our faith, only to feed 
us more richly with the bread that comes down from heaven. If a 
peculiar condemnation falls upon them who partake u unworthily," then 
a peculiar blessing must follow from partaking worthily ; and it there- 
fore becomes the duty of every minister to explain the obligation, and 
to show the advantages of this sacrament, and earnestly to enforce its 
regular observance upon all those who give satisfactory evidence of 
" repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." 



Chap. 1.] THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 597 



BOOK VII. 

THE FUTURE STATE. 

We come now to consider some of the leading doctrines of the Scrip- 
tures in regard to a future state. This is the last general division of 
Christian theology, and includes the immortality of the human soul, the 
resurrection of the body, a general judgment, the eternal blessedness of 
the saints, and the endless punishment of the wicked. 



CHAPTEE I. 

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

That the human soul is a spiritual and immaterial substance, distinct 
from the body, is a doctrine which we believe to be taught both by reason 
and revelation. But when we speak of its immortality we do not claim 
that this results from its immateriality, or that it is necessarily immor- 
tal and indestructible merely because it is immaterial. Such a conclu- 
sion would compel us to ascribe immortality to the brute creation also ; 
for, that the spirit of a beast is purely immaterial will hardly be denied 
by any one who believes that matter cannot think. God alone has a 
necessary existence, and is absolutely, and independently, and of him- 
self immortal. All other beings, whether material or immaterial, have a 
borrowed existence, for the continuance of which they are entirely depend- 
ent upon God ; and this is as true of our souls as it is of our bodies — of 
the whole universe as of a single atom. When, therefore, we ascribe 
immortality to the soul, we base it, not on the soul's inherent nature, 
but on the will and appointment of God. With this restriction, our 
meaning is that when the body dies, the soul, by the order and appoint- 
ment of God, still lives separate from it ; that it retains its natural and 
moral attributes ; and that it is capable of happiness or misery in its 
absence from the body. 

That the human soul survives the body and is immortal might be 



598 THE IMMOETALITY OF THE SOUL. [Book VII. 

argued with a good degree of plausibility from the general consent of 
the best informed of mankind in all ages ; from the vast powers of the 
soul itself; from its ardent desire for immortality ; and from the unequal 
distribution of good and evil in the present life. But as this is emi- 
nently a doctrine of divine revelation, and can only be established by 
an appeal to the Scriptures, we will bring the question at once to this 
standard, and examine it in the light of what God himself has declared 
upon the subject. This is the more necessary since it is contended by 
many that the Scriptures determine death to be the complete destruc- 
tion of the whole man — the extinction of the soul, as well as the body. 

The theory of destructionism or annihilationism, to. which we here 
allude, is in direct opposition to the commonly received doctrine respect- 
ing the soul's immortality. In order, therefore, to present the whole sub- 
ject in as clear a light as our limited space will allow, we will, 1. Offer 
some remarks in regard to this theory; and, 2. Adduce arguments in 
support of the immortality of the soul. 

I. The theoey of Desteuctionism. 

In the few remarks which we propose to make upon this theory we 
must confine ourselves to its history, its fundamental principles, and the 
mode of argumentation by which it is defended. 

1 . Its history. — That the soul dies with the body, and will be raised 
with it at the last day, is no new doctrine, but was maintained by an 
Arabian teacher as early as the third century, against whom Origen 
wrote. The same doctrine was taught in the twelfth century, and was 
condemned by Innocent III. In the sixteenth century it was advocated 
again by some Anabaptists and Socinians. In the close of the seven- 
teenth century it was revived, with considerable popularity, by William 
Coward, an eminent physician and psychologist of London ; and in the 
eighteenth century the doctrine had a strong advocate in Mr. John Tay- 
lor of Norwich. In all these cases, however, it was so successfully resisted 
by the force of argument that it was repudiated by the great body of 
the Church as a dangerous error. But not discouraged by former 
defeats, the theory in the present century is marshaling its forces anew ; 
and seems to be determined, at all hazards, to storm the citadel of man's 
immortality. Some of the commanders of this army of annihilation are 
Whately, Dobney, Ham, Hudson, Ellis, Read, and Storrs, whose writ- 
ings, with those of many others, are now everywhere flooding the Chris- 
tian world. Let us then notice, 

2. Some of the fundamental principles of this system. — In regard to 
many points, annihilationists differ among themselves. In presenting an 
outline of their system, therefore, we will state only those leading prin- 
ciples respecting which there seems to be a general agreement. They 
hold, 

(1.) That man is vjholly material ; the soul being merely the result of 
organization, and therefore incapable of a separate existence. In this 



Chap. 1.] THE IMMOETALITY OF THE SOUL. 599 

they are in perfect agreement with Epicurus, Lucretius, and other 
ancient atheistic philosophers ; and also with Spinosa, Toland, Hobbes, 
Voltaire, and Yolney. 

(2.) That death, as the penalty of the law, consists in the utter 
destruction or annihilation of the whole man. " Any torment or punish- 
ment," say they, " that comes short of terminating the very being of 
the sufferer, is not death, and therefore is not the penalty of the law."* 
Here also the philosophy of the annihilationists agrees perfectly with 
that of Voltaire and other French atheists, and the Robert Owen school 
of infidels. The only difference is, that the latter oppose their philoso- 
phy to the Bible, and to the possibility of a future life ; while the former 
attempt to reconcile their doctrines with the Bible, and with the future 
life of the righteous. 

(3.) That all men shall be raised from that state of non-existence into 
which they pass at death ; but they deny that the same soul or animating 
principle will be restored to the body. 

(4.) That after the general resurrection the wicked will again be 
annihilated, or blotted out of existence a second time ; which they call 
" the second death," or " eternal destruction." " The future punish- 
ment," says J. P.. Ham, " will not be an endless preservation in misery, 
but a total destruction or annihilation."! 

(5.) That there is now.no hell or place of torment in existence. " It is 
too commonly taken for granted," says the writer last quoted, "that place 
and elements of torment are actually in existence, and that the wicked, 
the moment of their decease, are transferred thither." Again, " the fire 
of hell is not yet kindled, and will not be until after the wicked are 
raised from the dead, and the processes of the great judgment are com- 
pleted.";); And, 

(6.) That the righteous, after they are raised from a state of annihila- 
tion, shall be endowed with endless life, and rewarded with eternal 
blessedness in heaven. 

Such are the general and fundamental principles of the annihilation 
theory, and they will very naturally lead us to inquire, 

3. By what mode of argumentation is this system defended? — We 
are not to forget that annihilationists regard the Bible as we do, to be 
a divinely inspired book, and the ultimate ground of appeal in all theo- 
logical questions. Hence it is to be understood that they claim to be 
fully sustained in their peculiar views by the teachings of the holy 
Scriptures. It will appear, however, in the course of this investigation, 
that their system is supported not by the plain and obvious meaning of 
inspired truth, but by their own false interpretations. Their funda- 
mental error consists in adopting the atheistic notion, that man is 
wholly material, and that the human soul is merely the result of animal 
organization. From this they very naturally draw the conclusion that 
* The Bible versus Tradition. f Life and Death, p. 143. % Ibid. 



600 THE IMMOKTALITY OF THE SOUL. [Book VII. 

death is the destruction of the whole man ; and as this is the leading 
and distinguishing tenet of their system, their whole strength of argu- 
ment is directed to its support. 

(1.) They contend that this doctrine is clearly implied in the original 
penalty, " In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die? Gen. 
ii, 17. This, it is asserted, was addressed to the "whole man /" and 
the conclusion is, that the death here spoken of includes the extinction 
of the soul, as well as that of the body. We do not deny that the 
penalty of the law, as expressed in this passage, implies the death of the 
whole man; but we do deny that it applies to the soul in the same sense 
that it does to the body, and that it consists in the destruction of the 
whole man. Indeed, the very reverse of this is evident from the case 
before us. God said to Adam, " Of the tree of the knowledge of good 
and evil, thou shalt not eat of it ; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou 
shalt surely die." The history tells us that Adam did eat of the for- 
bidden fruit. Did he die in the sense of the Divine threatening " in the 
day " that he transgressed ? To say he did not, is to charge God with 
uttering a falsehood. To say that he did, is to give up the doctrine 
that the penalty of the law consists in annihilation ; for Adam was not 
annihilated " in the day " that he fell, but lived nine hundred and thirty 
years. It follows, therefore, from this very passage, that the annihila- 
tion theory is false, and that we must seek some other interpretation of 
the term death, as expressive of the penalty of the law.* 

(2.) Annihilationists attempt to support their theory by adducing 
those Scriptures which compare the mortality of man to th|it of beasts. 
" Man being in honor abideth not ; he is like the beasts that perish. 
Like sheep they are laid in the grave." Psa. xlix, 12, 14. Here it is 
asked, " How do the beasts perish. ? Does the whole beast perish, or 
only a part of it ? If the whole beast perishes, the whole man must 
perish." This, however, is based upon an entire misapprehension of the 
passage. The psalmist teaches no other lesson than that the ungodly, 
notwithstanding all their wealth and pride, must be separated by death 
from their earthly possessions, and shall as certainly return to the dust 
as do " the beasts that perish." Again, 

Ecclesiastes iii, 19, 20: "For that which befalleth the sons of men 
befalleth beasts ; even one thing befalleth them. As one dieth, so dieth 
the other ; yea, they have all one breath ; so that a man hath no pre- 
eminence above a beast ; for all is vanity. All go unto one place ; all 
are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." This passage is perpetually 
quoted and insisted on by our opponents as a proof of the utter destruc- 
tion of man at death. But is it indeed true in every respect, that " a 
man hath no pre-eminence above a beast ?" Destructionists themselves 
do not believe this ; and surely our Lord taught a very different lesson 
when he said, " How much then is a man better than a sheep ?" The 
* See. book 3, chap. 3, § 1. 



Chap. 1.] THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 601 

text proves, however, that a man, so far as his mere animal existence is 
concerned, has " no pre-eminence above a beast." In both, animal life 
is the same. They breathe the same vital air, and live by the same 
natural means. They are equally mortal ; " as one dieth, so dieth the 
other." They both return to dust, and thus " go unto one place." 
But in all this there is nothing to disprove the immortality of the 
human soul. On the contrary, the doctrine is virtually affirmed in 
this very connection, when " the spirit of man that goeth upward " is 
distinguished from that of "the beast that goeth downward to the 
earth." 

(3.) They claim that the Scriptures support the doctrine of annihilation 
by denying to man a state of consciousness after death. In proof of this 
they cite Psalm cxlvi, 4 : " His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his 
earth ; in that very day his thoughts perish." This passage destructionists 
regard as conclusive proof that the dead are entirely unconscious, and, 
therefore, entirely extinct. Hence they ask with an air of triumph, 
" How can a thing be tormented that has no thoughts ?" And again : 
" Will our antagonists explain how it can harmonize with their theory 
of a state of consciousness after death, that in the day of death a man's 
4 thoughts perish ?' " This, however, is certainly not a difficult matter 
to explain, when we understand that the term thoughts, in this connec- 
tion, means simply purposes, desires, or expectations connected with the 
present life — a sense in which the word is often employed. Take, for 
example, Psalm xlix, 11:" Their inward thought (desire) is, that their 
houses shall continue forever." Isaiah lv, 7 : " Let the wicked forsake 
his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts;" surely not his thinking 
or his consciousness, but his purposes or desires. Acts viii, 22 : " And 
pray God, if perhaps the thought (purpose) of thine heart may be for- 
given thee." Indeed, so evidently are the terms thought and purpose 
used synonymously that we find one employed as exegetical of the other ; 
as in Job xvii, 11 : " My purposes are broken off, even the thoughts of 
my heart." We see, therefore, that the passage under consideration is 
perfectly consistent with the doctrine of the soul's uninterrupted immor- 
tality. 

Another proof-text of this class is Ecclesiastes ix, 5 : " For the living 
know that they must die ; but the dead know not anything, neither 
have they any more reward." Is this passage to be literally applied to 
the whole man, as destructionists contend ? If so, it will prove not only 
that the dead have no knowledge, and are therefore extinct, but that there 
will be no future retribution. For the passage evidently speaks of all 
the dead, without distinction of character ; and while it declares that 
they " know not anything" it assures us with the same degree of solem- 
nity that " neither have they any more a reward" Thus, by this mode 
of interpretation the text is made to prove that " death is an eternal 
sleep." What, then, is its true meaning ? Evidently this, that the dead 



602 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. [Book VII. 

have no knowledge of " anything that is done under the sun ;" and that, 
as their day of probation is ended, no change can ever be effected in 
regard to their future retribution. 

Very similar to this passage is the tenth verse of the same chapter : 
" Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might ; for there is 
no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither 
thou goest." Whether we understand the term which is translated 
grave as denoting the resting-place of the body, or as having reference 
to the future state of the soul, there is nothing in the passage which 
militates against the doctrine of immortality. The latter clause assigns 
the reason for what is enjoined in the former. Why should men do 
with their might the work which is here referred to ? Because it can 
only be done in the present life. For if men die in their sins, " there is 
no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom" in the future state 
to change their moral condition, or to save them from the penalty of the 
law. 

(4.) Another argument in support of destructionism is drawn from 
the fact that the Scriptures speak of death as a state of sleep. Thus, 
" David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David ;" 
" Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake ;" " Many 
bodies of saints which slept arose ;" and numerous other instances. But 
it is only necessary to remark here that when the dead are said to sleep 
a metaphor is used, founded upon the striking resemblance between 
sleep and death ; and at the same time, by another trope, a part is 
spoken of as the whole — the body as the entire man. This mode of 
speaking was not only employed by the sacred writers, but is in com- 
mon use among ourselves ; though we believe, as well as they, in the 
immortality of the soul. Hence we say of our departed friends, They 
sleep in death; They are silent in the grave. Must not every one, 
therefore, perceive the folly of interpreting such figurative language, 
when used in the Scriptures, in a literal sense ? As well might we con- 
clude that the sun performs his journey round the earth every twenty- 
four hours. 

But now let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the whole 
man literally sleeps after death. Is such a supposition consistent with 
the notion of annihilation ? It certainly is not. Sleep is a state of 
being, and necessarily implies the existence of that which sleeps. If the 
whole man sleeps after death, the whole man must continue to exist. 
If the soul sleeps as well as the body, it must sleep either in the body 
or out of it. If in the body, and if, as annihilationists affirm, the soul 
is the life of the body, how can the body be dead while the life is in it ? 
Again, how can the soul sleep in a body which has been utterly 
destroyed, as in the case of Wiclif and other martyrs ? But if the* 
soul sleeps out of the body, it must be separable from the body, and 
therefore cannot be the mere result of organization, as is claimed by the 



Chap. 1.] THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 603 

annihilation theory. There is nothing, then, in the representation of 
death as a state of sleep that is at all incompatible with the doctrine of 
the soul's immortality. 

(5.) There are two passages in the New Testament which are urged 
by destructionists with great confidence as being directly confirma- 
tory of their theory. The first is Acts ii, 34: "For David is not 
ascended into the heavens." From this it is argued that the soul cannot 
be immortal — that if David is " both dead and buried," as the apostle 
asserts, and " is not ascended into the heavens," he must have perished 
soul and body at death. But to show that this conclusion rests upon a 
sandy foundation it is only necessary to remark, that though proper 
names are usually applied to men in their compound* and perfect state, 
yet they are sometimes applied to the body alone, as when it is said that 
" devout men carried Stephen to his burial ;" and at other times to the 
spirit alone, as when the sacred writer tells us that Moses appeared on 
the mount of transfiguration. 

The apostle does not say that the soul of " David is not ascended into 
the heavens," but only that David is not so ascended. And this is 
strictly true, whether we understand him to speak of the body of David, 
which is still under the power of death, or of David in his compound 
and perfect state. But that we are to understand the apostle in the lat- 
ter sense is evident from the context. His theme is the resurrection and 
ascension of Christ. To prove that Christ had risen from the dead and 
was glorified in heaven, he quotes the prophetic language of David. 
But as David had uttered this prediction in the first person, it was nec- 
essary for the apostle to* show that it had respect to Christ, and not to 
the prophet himself. Hence he argues that it could not have its fulfill- 
ment in David, because he, not having risen from the dead, had not 
ascended into heaven, in the sense of the prediction. It is plain, there- 
fore, that the ascension of which the apostle speaks implies the resurrec- 
tion of the body, and glorification of the whole man in heaven. In this 
sense " David is not ascended into the heavens ;" but this is no proof 
that his soul is not in a state of conscious enjoyment. 

The other passage referred to is 1 Corinthians xv, 16-18 : "For if the 
dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. And if Christ be not raised, 
your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are 
fallen asleep in Christ are perished." There is perhaps no passage of 
Scripture more frequently quoted by annihilationists than this ; but it is 
certainly not very easy to perceive its relevancy to their purpose. It 
contains, however, the term "perished" which they all understand to 
mean total extinction. But what is the argument of the apostle in 
this connection? Evidently this, that if Christ is not risen, then they 
who have fallen asleep in him have perished ; which clearly implies that 
since he has risen they have not perished. Now, if to perish means to 
become totally extinct, as destructionists contend, not to perish must 



604 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. [Book VII. 

mean, to continue in a state of conscious being. It follows, therefore, 
annihilationists themselves being judges, that since Christ has risen from 
the dead, and has thus declared himself to be the promised Messiah, 
those who sleep in him have not perished, but continue in a state of 
conscious existence. 

Having then exposed, as we think, the futility of the arguments usually 
urged by annihilationists in vindication of their theory, we will proceed 
to consider, 

II. The testimony of Scripture in regard to the immortality 

OP THE SOUL. 

In our inquiries respecting the future state Divine revelation is our 
only sure guide. Ko human eye can penetrate the vail that separates 
us from the unknown world to which we journey. Reason, though a 
most valuable endowment, can only form conjectures in regard to 
another life. Imagination may amuse itself in flights of fancy through 
the spirit-world, but it can ascertain no truth respecting what awaits 
us beyond the grave. But the Bible, as a revelation from God, brings 
life and immortality to light, and explains to man in most explicit terms 
the nature and circumstances of his future destiny. That it teaches the 
doctrine of the uninterrupted immortality of the human soul is what we 
believe, and what we now propose to prove. In doing this, we think it 
best to present the argument under the two following heads : 1. The 
soul is distinct from the body, and capable of a separate existence. 
And, 2. It exists after death in an uninterrupted state of consciousness, 
and will so exist forever.* 

1. The soul is distinct from the body, and capable of a separate 
existence. — When we say that the soul is distinct from the body, we do 
not mean that it is independent of the body in our present mode of 
existence ; but only that it is different from the body in its attributes 
and functions. The attributes of the soul are not those of matter ; such 
as solidity, magnitude, and figure. These, however, belong to the body, 
which is therefore material. But man possesses attributes which cannot 
be ascribed to matter, as consciousness, thought, desire ; and hence 
there must be connected with his being something distinct from matter 
to which these attributes belong, and this we call the soul. The func- 
tions of the soul are also distinct from those of the body. Among the 
latter are circulation, nutrition, motion, and respiration; among the 
former, conception, volition, and reasoning. But that -the soul is 
distinct from the body, and therefore capable of a separate existence, 
may be argued, 

(1.) From the history of man's creation. — The record is, that u the 
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his 
nostrils the breath of life, (or lives, as the margin has it,) and man 

* For the endless existence of the soul in a state of retribution, see chapters 4 and 5 
of this book. 



Chap. 1.] THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 605 

became a living soul." Here it is distinctly stated, that after God had 
formed from the dust of the ground the corporeal part of man, the soul 
was superadded as a distinct creation. And, as it is thus distinguished 
from the body, and was added to the body after it had been formed or 
organized, it cannot be the mere result of organization ; nor can there be 
any rational ground for the opinion, that it must necessarily perish with 
the body. Solomon, however, settles the question of the soul's distinct 
existence. His language is, referring no doubt to man's original crea- 
tion, u Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was ; and the spirit 
shall return unto God who gave it." Eccles. xii, V. Here the sacred 
penman makes a clear distinction between the body and the soul. The 
former returns " to the earth as it was" according to the Divine 
announcement, " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return ;" 
while the latter returns, not to the earth, as materialism would teach, 
but " unto God who gave it" 

(2.) The committing of the soul to God in the prospect of death is 
another proof of its separability from the body. — David said, in view of 
the separation of soul and body in death, " Into thine hand I commit 
my spirit" Psa. xxxi, 5. Our Lord exclaimed, when about to expire 
on the cross, " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke 
xxiii, 46. So likewise the martyr Stephen, when in the agonies of 
death, uttered the solemn prayer, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" 
Acts vii, 59. "What was it, then, that the inspired prophet and our 
dying Lord committed into the hands of God ? And what was it that 
the expiring Stephen besought the Lord Jesus to receive ? Was it the 
body ? Certainly not. Was it the breath ? Surely no one can seri- 
ously suppose that they wished to commit the last portion of air which 
they breathed to the care of God. What concern could they have 
about what would become of their last breath ? " Air is air, whether 
breathed first or last, or not at all; and has no more to do with the 
spirit than earth or water." Was it the mere animal life which passes 
into nonentity at death? To suppose this, would be to suppose that 
they solemnly committed a nonentity to the care of God, which would 
be shockingly absurd. The only true answer to the question is that it 
was the spieit, as the passages declare ; the immaterial and immortal 
part. It follows, therefore, that the spirit is distinct from the body, and 
survives its dissolution. 

(3.) The same doctrine is taught when death is spoken of as a giving 
up of the ghost, a form of expression which is employed both in the Old 
and the New Testament. — Thus it is said of Jacob, that " he yielded 
up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people." Gen. xlix, 33. " Man 
giveth up the ghost," says Job, " and where is he?" Job xiv, 10. So 
also it is said of our Lord that he " yielded up the ghost," or dismissed 
the spirit. Matt, xxvii, 50. Annihilationists do not hesitate to say that 
this is a " very awkward expression ;" and certainly it does not at all 



606 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. [Book VII. 

suit their theory. But the phrase expresses the exact sense of the orig- 
inal, while it is in perfect harmony with the doctrine, that when the 
body dies the soul returns to God who gave it. If, however, the soul 
were not separable from the body, it would be hard to determine the 
import of such language. But, 

(4.) Our position may be further argued from the fact that man has 
no power to kill the soul. — Our Lord said to his apostles, in order to 
encourage them against persecution, "Fear not them which kill the 
body, but are not able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him which is 
able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt, x, 28. That perse- 
cutors have power to kill the body will not be denied, and therefore 
needs no proof; but have they power to kill the soul? Our Lord says 
they have not. If, however, destructionism were true, and if the soul 
were " simply the life? as Mr. Ham contends, they would be as able to 
kill the soul as to kill the body ; unless it can be shown by some 
strange process that the body can be killed without destroying the 
life. 

One of the latest and most popular expositions of the annihilation 
school on this passage is the following : " Although wicked men and 
devils can extinguish this life and reduce the being of man to dust, they 
have no more that they can do ; they cannot prevent the resurrection, 
and therefore cannot destroy our being or life." They can " only sus- 
pend OUR BEING UNTIL THE RESURRECTION."* But how Can Such a 

criticism be reconciled to the language of Christ? It assumes that 
wicked men have power to extinguish life, to reduce the whole man to 
dust, and thus to suspend his " being until the resurrection." Conse- 
quently, if this is true, they have power to kill the soul in precisely the 
same sense in which they have power to kill the body. But our Lord 
says, in direct opposition to this exposition, that they " are not able to 
kill the souir This text, therefore, must continue to stand as an irre- 
fragable proof of the immortality of the human soul, and an unanswer- 
able refutation of the annihilation theory. But we will now proceed to 
prove, 

2. That the soul exists after death in an uninterrupted state of con- 
sciousness. — There are many passages of Scripture which clearly sustain 
this doctrine, a few of which we will quote. 

(1.) Matthew xvii, 3 : " And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses 
and Elias, talking with him." — As to Elias, he no doubt appeared in the 
same body that was translated. His appearance, therefore, has no 
direct bearing upon the question before us. But with Moses the case 
was very different, for he had died and was buried " in the land of 
Moab." When, therefore, he appeared to the disciples of our Lord on 
the mount of transfiguration, he must have appeared as a disembodied 
spirit, and hence this fact establishes the conscious existence of the soul 

* Is man immortal ? 



Chap. 1.] THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 607 

after death. To evade the force of this argument annihilationists have 
indulged in various conjectures. Mr. Z. Campbell supposes the passage 
to afford "no evidence that either Moses or Elias was ever on that 
mountain," and concludes that "the whole was a vision."* This he 
infers from the ninth verse : " Tell the vision to no man." It is fatal to 
his theory, however, that the word ogafia, here rendered " vision," usu- 
ally signifies sight, appearance, a thing seen; and that the parallel pas- 
sage in Mark determines this to be the true sense: " He charged them that 
they should tell no man what things they had seen." The vision, there- 
fore, was a real sight, Christ himself being judge. 

Mr. Storrs, not being satisfied with the vision theory, assumes that 
Moses, on this occasion, "was raised from the dead." The first objec- 
tion to this view is that it is wholly gratuitous. Of the death and burial 
of Moses we have positive proof; but there is no intimation in the 
sacred volume that he was ever raised from the dead. The second 
objection is that it contradicts the word of God. St. Paul tells us that 
Christ is "the first-traits of them that slept," — "the first-born from the 
dead ;" which would not be true if Moses had risen from the dead when 
he appeared on the mount. Mr. Storrs attempts to obviate this objec- 
tion by saying, " It is not true, in an absolute sense, that Christ was 
the first-born from the dead ; for Elisha raised the widow's son. Our 
Lord also raised several from the dead before his resurrection." But 
these cases are entirely irrelevant, because the persons alluded to were 
not raised to a life of immortality. They again died a natural death, 
and will, with the rest of mankind, be subjects of the resurrection at the 
last day. If, then, Christ is the first who rose from the dead to die no 
more, as the Scriptures evidently teach, Moses had not thus risen when 
he appeared on the mount ; and, consequently, his appearance on that 
occasion and his conversing with our Lord demonstrate the conscious- 
ness and activity of departed and disembodied Spirits. 

(2.) Matthew xxii, 32 : "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of 
Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of 
the living." — This argument of our Lord was intended to refute the 
error of the Sadducees in regard to the resurrection of the body. But 
as their denial of this was based upon another fundamental error, namely, 
the denial of the existence of disembodied spirits, he wisely framed his 
argument to meet both. The Sadducees professed to believe the writ- 
ings of Moses, and could not object to the ground of the argument. 
Our Lord therefore proceeds to draw the conclusion, since God has 
declared, "Jam the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob," that these patriarchs, though long since dead as to the 
body, must still live ; for " God is not the God of \he dead, but of the 
living" And then, as if intending to place on record an everlasting 
testimony against annihilationism, he adds, "for all live unto him" 
* Age of Gospel Light, pp. 34, 35. 



608 THE IMMOETALITY OF THE SOUL. [Book VII. 

Not only do the patriarchs live in the world of spirits, but in like man- 
ner all that have died. It follows, therefore, that the conscious existence 
of the soul is not interrupted by death. 

(3.) Luke xvi, 22, 23: "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, 
and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also 
died, and was buried ; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in tor- 
ments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." — By the 
phrase Abraham' 's bosom, the Jews understood the resting-place of the 
pious dead. The word translated hell is a<fyc, which is equivalent to 
the Hebrew Six©, (sheol,) and means simply the place of departed 
spirits, without any reference to their happiness or misery. It may 
therefore be employed, in connection with a qualifying term, to designate 
the place either of future enjoyment or torment. 

It is a matter of but little consequence whether we regard this por- 
tion of Scripture as a parable or as a real history ; for in either case its 
doctrinal import is the same. If it is a history, it relates what has 
actually taken place ; but if a parable, it is an illustration of what does 
or may occur. It would be as profane to suppose that Christ conveyed 
false impressions to mankind under the guise of a parable, as that he 
deviated from the truth in his plain and positive declarations. He 
employed parables to illustrate the truth and make it more forcible — not 
to misrepresent and weaken it. If, then, this is a parable, what does it 
most naturally and clearly teach ? To this there can be but one reply, 
and that is, It shows that the souls of the righteous enter immediately 
after death into a state of felicity, and the souls of the wicked into tor- 
ment ; and that there will be no subsequent reversion of their condition. 
" It cannot be made the representation of anything in this world, because 
the persons concerned are said to have died, and the world of spirits is 
clearly designated as the scene of the transaction described. Nor does 
it represent anything beyond the judgment • because, while the one was 
comforted and the other tormented, the rich man had five brethren alive 
on the earth under the tuition of Moses and the prophets, and, there- 
fore, eligible to salvation. We take this account, then, as the unequiv- 
ocal testimony of Infinite Truth to the consciousness of the dead and 
the diversity of their condition, according to their probationary deport- 
ment." * 

(4.) Luke xxiii, 43 : " Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, 
to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." — This passage expresses, in 
the clearest possible manner, the immediate entrance of the dying 
thief into a state of happiness after death, and is, in its most 
obvious sense, perfectly incompatible with the doctrine of annihilation- 
ism. Some of the advocates of this theory wisely pass it over in silence ; 
while others make a most vigorous effort so to explain away its meaning 
as to reconcile it to their own peculiar views. They assert, for instance, 
* Methodist Quarterly for 1850, p. 119. 



Chap. 1.] THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 609 

that the adverb to-day is used to qualify the verb say, and not the verb 
shalt be; and that, therefore, the comma should be placed after the 
adverb, and not after the pronoun thee, as in our authorized version. 
Thus : " Verily I say unto thee to-day, thou shalt be with me in para- 
dise ;" that is, " thou shalt be with me " after the resurrection. 

To justify this change in the punctuation, it is asserted that "the 
location of the comma is no part of inspired testimony, but a thing 
of modern invention." And what then ? Does this fact give men 
liberty to turn the Scriptures into nonsense by placing points at ran- 
dom ? Or does it not rather say, that the plain and obvious meaning 
of every inspired passage should determine its punctuation ? What a 
wonderful discovery was made to the dying penitent, according to the 
notion of annihilationists, when our Lord informed him that he was 
uttering the language of the text the very day he uttered it, and not 
the day before or the day after ! Most men would conclude that he 
knew this fact, without being so emphatically informed of it. This view 
of the passage is therefore incompatible with common sense, and must 
be rejected. 

If, then, we understand the text as its common punctuation requires, 
it must be regarded as the clearest possible announcement of the unin- 
terrupted immortality of the human soul. The Jews employed the term 
paradise to designate the resting-place of the pious dead ; and the thief, 
who was a Jew, could understand the term in no other sense. When,, 
therefore, our Lord said to him, " To-day shalt thou be with me in para- 
dise," he must have expected to enter immediately into that place of 
rest. But this gracious assurance given to the expiring penitent was 
also backed by that most solemn form of asseveration, a\i,7\v, amen, verily, 
— a form of expression which the sacred writers never employ, except 
when they affirm a thing in the most direct and earnest manner. It is 
even employed as one of the names of Christ : " The Amen, the faith- 
ful and true witness." Rev. in," 14. 

(5.) 2 Cor. v, 6-8: "Therefore we are always confident, knowing 
that, while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord ; 
(for we walk by faith, not by sight.) We are confident, I say, and will- 
ing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the 
Lord." 

Here the apostle most evidently teaches, that to be absent from the 
body is to be present with the Lord ; and it is equally evident, that by 
absence from the body he means the separation of the soul from the body 
at death. Consequently, the souls of the pious dead are with the Lord ; 
which clearly implies, that they are subjects of uninterrupted immor- 
tality. This passage, therefore, is sufficient of itself to settle the ques- 
tion of the soul's conscious existence after death. "There is not the 
slightest intimation here," says Dr. Clarke, " that the soul sleeps, or, 
rather, that there is no soul ; and when the body is decomposed, that 

39 



610 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. [Book VII. 

there is no more of the man till the resurrection. I mean according to 
the sentiments of those who do condescend to allow us a resurrection, 
though they deny us a soul. But this is a philosophy in which St. Paul 
got no lessons, either from Gamaliel, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, .or 
in the third heavens, where he heard even unutterable things." 

(6.) Phil, i, 21 : " For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." — One 
would think this to be a difficult passage for annihilationists to inter- 
pret. Mr. Storrs, however, explains it thus : " ; For me to live is Christ, 
(is to magnify Christ,) and to die is gain? Gain for whom ? I answer, 
for Christ ; for thereby Christ will be magnified even more than by 
my life." This is perhaps as plausible an exegesis as this school can 
afford ; but it is liable to one insuperable objection — it contradicts the 
language of the apostle. He says, "JFbr me to live is Christ, and to die 
is gain y" that is, to die is gain for me. And that he considers the 
gain to be to himself, and not to Christ, is evident from what follows 
in the same connection. "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having 
a desire to depart and to be with Christ / which is far better : never- 
theless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." Thus he believed 
it to be for the good of the Church that he should live ; but for himself 
it was more desirable that he should die. But why so ? Because he 
expected then to be with Christ, in a state of conscious existence and 
exquisite enjoyment. Who can suppose that St. Paul, with all his burn- 
ing zeal for Christ and his ardent love for the Church, would rather 
yield up his whole being to utter destruction, than to live and labor in 
the cause of God and for the salvation of his fellow-men ? Such a sup- 
position would be most unreasonable ; and hence this passage must 
stand as the ever-abiding testimony of the Holy Spirit against the 
destructive error of annihilationism. 

The preceding passages of Scripture are only a few of the many that 
might be adduced in support of the uninterrupted immortality of the 
human soul ; but they are sufficient, if candidly considered, to establish 
the doctrine beyond successful controversy. Those who reject their 
testimony would reject the testimony of a thousand more. It may be 
proper, however, before we leave this part of the subject, to notice an 
objection which destructionists often urge against the view of immor- 
tality which we have defended. It is this : " If the righteous exist 
after death in a state of happiness, and the wicked in a state of misery, 
then men are to be judged twice: first, at death; and secondly, in the 
judgment of the great day." 

To this we reply, 1 . That the disembodied spirit, independent of any 
formal judgment, must, in the very nature of the case, be either in a 
happy or a miserable condition. Its conscious existence and moral 
character alone involve this necessity. But, 2. If the doctrine of the 
uninterrupted immortality of the soul even necessarily implied a two- 
fold judgment, this circumstance would not disprove it. For, what is 



Chap. 2.] THE KESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 611 

true of the Divine administration in regard to angels, might also be 
true in regard to men. The Scriptures inform us that " God spared 
not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell /" or, in other 
words, adjudged them to their merited punishment ; and not only this, 
but that they are " reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the 
judgment of the great day.'''' If, therefore, the fallen angels can be made 
the subjects of a twofold judgment, why may not men ? 



CHAPTER II. 

THE EESUEEECTION OF THE BODY. 

Having considered, in the preceding chapter, the doctrine of the 
soul's immortality, our next subject of investigation is, the resurrection 
of the human body. This will lead us to examine, 1. Its nature ; 2. Its 
certainty; and, 3. The properties of the body that shall be raised. 

I. The Nature or the Resurrection. 

By the resurrection of the dead we understand the revivification of the 
body which dies, and its reunion with the immortal spirit; so that 
after the resurrection every human being will be substantially the same 
person as in the present life. 

The doctrine of the resurrection is purely a doctrine of Divine reve- 
lation. Reason does not suggest it ; or rather, in the eye of reason it 
seems incredible. To those, therefore, who have no other guide it is 
wholly unknown, and when first proposed to such it is usually rejected. 
When St. Paul delivered his discourse before the Athenian philosophers, 
and " preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection" they contemptu- 
ously called him a " babbler," and said, " Thou bringest certain strange 
things to our ears." 

But though this is a doctrine which reason could not discover, yet, 
since God has revealed it in his word, reason confirms the dictates of 
revelation. Reason assures us that the power of God is able to execute 
the purposes of his will. " Why should it be thought a thing incredible 
with you that God should raise the dead?" is a question which ought 
to silence all infidel objectors. As the resurrection does not imply a 
contradiction, it is possible, and may therefore be effected by Almighty 
power. He who at first fashioned the human body out of the dust can 
surely raise it from the dust again. It is therefore unreasonable to 
hesitate for a moment about the possibility of an event which God has 
signified his intention to accomplish, merely because we do not under- 



612 THE BESURRECTION OF THE BODY. [Book VII. 

stand how it can be effected. To do so is nothing less than to measure 
the power of God by our own weakness and ignorance. 

Assuming, then, for the present, that the resurrection of the human 
body is a doctrine of the Bible, we will proceed briefly to consider 
what the Scriptures teach respecting its nature. From them we 
learn, 

1. That it is a resurrection of the same body that dies. — The identity 
of the risen body with that which is laid in the grave, may be argued 
from various considerations. 

(1.) It is implied in the very idea of a resurrection. — The word 
evepotc, which is rendered resurrection, and the corresponding term 
avdoraGig, both signify the rising or standing up of that which had 
fallen or lain down. Unless the same body which dies is again raised 
up, the term resurrection is an absurdity. For God to give • us a new 
body — one which the spirit never inhabited, would be a creation, and 
not a resurrection. Moreover, to suppose that the soul is hereafter to 
be united to a body which is different from the present, is to suppose 
that the inspired writers made choice of language to designate this im- 
portant event, which conveys a fallacious idea. The same body, then, 
from which the spirit is separated by death, is the body which rises from 
the dead, and with which the soul is reunited. 

(2.) It is explicitly taught in many passages of Scripture. — Thus we 
read in Daniel xii, 2 : " And many of them that sleep in the dust of the 
earth shall awake." This cannot be predicated of the soul, for it does 
not sleep in the dust. It may be also observed, that the terms sleep and 
awake imply that when we arise again from the dead our bodies will 
be as really the same as when we awake from natural sleep. Again, our 
Lord affirms, John v, 28, 29, " All that are in the graves shall hear his 
voice, and shall -come forth." But if the same body which is laid in the 
grave does not rise again, how shall they " that are in the graves come 
forth ?" The graves can give up no bodies but those which were laid 
in them. It is also expressly taught by St. Paul, that the body which 
is raised in incorruption, glory, and power, is the very same body that 
is sown in corruption, dishonor, and weakness ;* and that Christ " shall 
change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious 
body." Phil, iii, 21. It follows, therefore, that "our vile body," which 
can be no other than that body with which we are now clothed, is to 
be made the subject of the resurrection. 

(3.) The same truth is taught in the resurrection of our Lord. — As he 
is " the first-fruits of them that slept," his resurrection is to be regarded 
both as the pledge and the pattern of ours. But it is evident that he 
did not assume a different body from the one which he had before his 
death. On the contrary, he proves the fact of his resurrection from his 
personal identity. " Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; 

* See 1 Cor. xv, 42, 43. 



Chap. 2.] THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 613 

handle me, and see." Luke xxiv, 39. Hence, as our Lord rose from 
the dead in the very same body that was put to death, so we may expect 
that these mortal bodies of ours "shall put on immortality" in the 
morning of the resurrection. 

An objection to the resurrection of the same body has been drawn 
from the supposed changes of its substance during life. It is assumed 
that the body, between youth and old age, changes its entire substance 
several times ; and then it is asserted that if the resurrection body 
were to include all the matter that ever belonged to it it would neces- 
sarily be a monster. The answer to this is, that allowing a frequent 
and total change of the substance of the body to take place, (which, 
however, is only a mere hypothesis,) it affects not the doctrine of Scrip- 
ture, which is, that the body which is laid in the grave shall be raised 
up. 

But then we are told that if our bodies have in fact undergone suc- 
cessive changes during life, the bodies in which we have sinned or per- 
formed rewardable actions may not be, in many instances, the same 
bodies as those which will be actually rewarded or punished. We 
answer, that rewards and punishments have their relation to the body, 
not so much as it is the subject of them as it is the instrument. It is the 
soul only which perceives pain or pleasure, which suffers or enjoys, and 
which is, in reality, the only rewardable subject. Were we, therefore, 
to admit such corporeal mutations as are assumed in the objection, they 
would not affect the case of our accountability. 

But who is prepared to prove that what properly constitutes the 
identity of the body is not continued through the whole of human 
life ? Though we allow the grosser parts of the body to be continually 
passing away, yet we never suppose that we have lost our body or 
received a new one. In respect to these grosser parts, our body in infancy 
was totally different from our present body ; and in old age it will be 
different from what it is now. Still we call it through these different 
periods our body, and regard it as being the same. Indeed, if the 
human body, amid all these supposed changes, does not preserve its per- 
sonal identity, the common forms of speech, our own consciousness, and 
the civil jurisprudence of all countries are calculated to mislead ; for 
they all involve the fact that every human being continues to be the 
same person through every period of life. 

Another objection to the resurrection of the same body is, that the 
same matter may enter successively into the composition of several 
bodies. " Human bodies may not only become the food of animals 
which are eaten by men, but they are occasionally devoured by canni- 
bals, and thus converted into a part of their bodies. And if that which 
was part of one man's body becomes afterward part of the body of 
another, how can both rise with the same bodies which they had before?" 
Two things are supposed in this objection : first, that all the particles 



614 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. [Book VII. 

which have ever belonged to the body will be included in its future com- 
position ; and, secondly, that a part of one human body may become a 
part of another. It is evident, however, that if the first supposition is 
true the second is false ; and if the second is true the first is false ; but 
we cannot affirm anything certainly concerning either. It is enough for 
us to know that the all-wise and almighty God is able to perform what 
he has promised. 

2. The resurrection is to be universal. — It will include the whole human 
family that have lived and died, from the father of the race to his young- 
est son. " For the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves 
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good unto 
the resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrec- 
tion of damnation." John v, 28, 29. So St. John tells us that "he saw 
the dead, small and great, stand before God." Rev. xx, 12. How vast 
will be the assemblage ! How sublime the scene ! " In a moment, in 
the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump," all, from the earth and from 
the sea, from Asia, Africa, Europe, and America, and from the scattered 
isles that spot the ocean, shall then come forth to life. 

The transmutation of the living shall immediately succeed the resur- 
rection of the dead. " Behold," says St. Paul, " I show you a mystery : 
We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. For this corrupti- 
ble must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." 
1 Cor. xv, 51, 53. And again, after speaking of the rising of the dead in 
Christ, he says : " Then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught 
up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air ; and 
so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. iv, 17. 

II. The Certainty of the Resurrection. 

" That there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and 
unjust," is the common faith of Jews and Christians. Some, it is true, 
have supposed the doctrine of the resurrection to be peculiar to the New 
Testament ; but this is obviously an error. We readily admit that it is 
more clearly revealed in the Christian Scriptures than in those of the Old 
Testament; but whoever will examine the latter on the subject may 
easily perceive that, though the Sadducees denied the resurrection of 
the dead, yet the doctrine was believed by the ancient patriarchs and 
prophets, and by the Jews in general. This article of the Jewish faith 
is clearly expressed by Martha when speaking of Lazarus, her departed 
brother : " I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last 
day." John xi, 24. 

To this doctrine there are many philosophical objections. Some have 
been noticed, and others might be named ; but the wisdom and power 
of God answer all objections and remove all difficulties. The great 
question is, whether the resurrection of the dead is a doctrine of Divine 
revelation. If it is, its truth follows of course. To say that it implies a 
contradiction is to say that God has formed a world to frustrate his own 



Chap. 2.] THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY, 615 

purposes ; which would be to charge the God of nature with folly. Cer- 
tainly matter, in all its forms, must be under the control of him who 
created it. When, therefore, he gives the word to raise the human body 
no obstacle can prevent its resurrection, for it is effected by Almighty- 
power. And does not the power of God effect things as really wonder- 
ful every day ? " The only difference between these daily occurrences 
and a miracle is, that the miracle does not occur every day. It is as 
great a miracle that men breathe, or that the sun rises, as that the dead 
body shall be raised. It is as great a miracle that men. exist now, as 
that they shall exist again." 

There are various analogies in the operations of nature and Providence 
by which this subject may be illustrated. " What is night but the 
death of day ? What is morning but its resurrection from the shades 
of darkness ? What is winter but the death of the year ? In the dead 
leaves you see emblems of death scattered wherever you go. What is 
spring but a resurrection? Look at the unsightly seed without any 
appearance of life, thrown into the earth, and then the particles separat- 
ing, there springs up a plant ! Behold it unfolding, and budding, and 
blossoming, and casting its fragrance all around : that is its resurrection. 
We see the insect tribe give their evidence ; living frequently and abso- 
lutely in different states and elements, sometimes crawling as a worm, 
then lying in apparent torpor, then bursting the shell and with wings 
of beauty and activity skimming the atmosphere."* These, however, 
are merely illustrations, and not adduced as proofs ; for as the resurrec- 
tion of the dead is purely a doctrine of the Bible, by no other testimony 
can it be established. 

Having made these remarks as preparatory to the adduction of Bible 
testimony, we will now proceed to show that the certainty of the resur- 
rection is fully established, 

1. By plain and positive declarations of Scripture. — "I know," said 
Job, " that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter 
day upon the earth : and though, after my skin, worms destroy this 
body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." Job xix, 25, 26. So also the 
evangelical prophet speaks in the following animated strain : " Thy 
dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. 
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust ; for thy dew is as the dew of 
herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." Isa. xxvi, 19. "And 
many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Dan. 
xii, 2. These passages from the Old Testament show that the saints of 
God, under the former dispensation, looked beyond this world of mor- 
tality to the unfolding glories of the resurrection morn. 

But this doctrine is still more explicitly declared in the New Testa- 
ment. Our Lord asserts, that " all that are in the graves shall hear his 
* Watson's Sermons, vol. 1, p. 252. 



616 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. [Book VII. 

voice, and shall come forth." John v, 28, 29. Again : " This is the 
Father's will which hath sent me, That of all which he hath given me 
I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." 
John vi, 39. St. Paul asserts, that " as in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order, Christ 
the first-fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." And 
again : u The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incor- 
ruptible, and we shall be changed." 1 Cor. xv, 22, 23, 52. Still further : 
" He which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, 
and shall present us with you." 2 Cor. iv, 14. But this event is 
secured, 

2. By the resurrection of Jesus Christ himself. — The sacred writers 
speak of this fact as being connected with a train of most important 
consequences, and especially as being connected with the resurrection 
of the whole human race. Hence Christ is spoken of as " the first-fruits 
of them that slept." The first-fruits were by the command of God pre- 
sented to him at a stated season, both as a token of the gratitude of the 
Israelites for his boin>ty, and as an earnest of the approaching harvest. 
In allusion to this rite, Christ is called the first-fruits of the dead. He 
was first in the order of time ; for, though some were restored to life 
by the prophets and by himself during his personal ministry, none were 
raised to an immortal life till after his resurrection. And as he was 
thus first in the order of time, so he was first as an earnest of the resur- 
rection of others. All the saints follow him, as the harvest followed the 
presentation of the first-fruits in the temple. Go ye, therefore, and 
search the tomb of Christ, and see in his vacated sepulcher an infallible 
pledge that your graves shall give you up, and that you, if believers in 
him, shall be gathered in the general harvest. " Because I live," says 
Christ, " ye shall live also." The interval between death and the resur- 
rection may be long, and the dreary sterility of the grave may seem to 
justify the thought that the dust committed to it has perished forever. 
But our faith rests upon the power of him who can make the wilderness 
blossom as the rose ; and at whose command the charnel house shall 
give birth to immortality, and death itself shall teem with life. But of 
this doctrine we have another proof, 

3. In the preaching of the apostles. — With them, to preach the Gos- 
pel was to preach Christ and the resurrection. Thus we learn that 
Peter and John were cast into prison because " they taught the people, 
and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead." Actsiv, 2. 
So, also, Paul preached to the Athenians " Jesus and the resurrection ;" 
and on another occasion, when defending himself before the Jewish 
council, he exclaimed, " Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of 
a Pharisee : of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in 
question." Acts xxiii, 6. We see, therefore, that the apostles made the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead a leading theme in their 



Chap. 2.] THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 617 

public administrations ; everywhere insisting on the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ as " the first-fruits of them that slept," and the conse- 
quent resurrection of all the human race. This doctrine is also estab- 
lished, 

4. By a consideration of the nature and extent of redemption. — 
Redemption is the payment of a price in order to the liberation of a 
captive, an idea which is clearly involved in the sacrifice of Christ. Our 
redemption is twofold, virtual and actual. Virtual redemption is 
redemption by price. Actual redemption is redemption in fact — the 
actual claiming of the captive. Virtual redemption in regard to its 
extent, includes the whole human family ; for Christ tasted " death for 
every man." It includes also the whole of man's nature — the body as 
well as the soul. This is evident from what the apostle says : " Ye are 
not your own, for ye are bought with a price ; therefore glorify God in 
your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20. 
Hence the bodies of the saints, as well as their souls, have been purchased 
by Christ. Their members, though dissolved by death, are still written 
in his book, and will in due time be raised in beauty and immortality, 
" according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things 
unto himself." 

In regard to the soul, every true believer is actually redeemed in the 
present life ; but not so with respect to the body. For, though it is 
virtually redeemed, its actual redemption lies beyond the present state 
of being. That can only be fully accomplished when our Redeemer 
shall break the iron grasp of death, and liberate the captives of the 
grave. Till then we must wait for the crowning blessing of our " adop- 
tion, to wit, the redemption of our body." Till then the purposes of 
Christ's mediation will not be fully accomplished ; " for he must reign 
till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be 
destroyed is death." This, therefore, clearly and necessarily implies 
the resurrection of the human race. And " then shall be brought to 
pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O 
death ! where is thy sting ? grave ! where is thy victory ?" 1 Cor. 
xv, 54, 55. 

III. The properties of the resurrection body. 

This subject is particularly alluded to by St. Paul in the fifteenth 
chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. Some, it is true, suppose 
that the apostle is here attempting to prove the doctrine of the resur- 
rection by arguments drawn from natural things ; but as Mr. Watson 
remarks, " He does no such thing. He never could do it. He was too 
wise a man to attempt it. He knew it rested on the testimony of Jesus, 
and not on anything in nature. To deduce from reason the doctrine of 
the resurrection, is left to half-infidel divines." 

The key to the whole argument of the apostle is found in the two fol- 
lowing questions : " How are the dead raised up ? and with what body 



618 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. [Book VII. 

do they come ?" The first relates merely to the possibility of the resur- 
rection, and implies a denial of the fact ; or at least, a strong doubt con- 
cerning it.* To this he replies, not by attempting to prove that the 
resurrection is possible, but by showing the folly of denying it ; while 
we are compelled to acknowledge the equally mysterious fact, that in 
the order of nature the dying seed produces the living plant. u Thou 
fool ! that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die ; and that 
which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare 
grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain ; but God giveth 
it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body." It 
cannot be shown that the resurrection of the human body is any more 
wonderful than the process of vegetation, since both must be referred to 
Divine agency. 

The second question, "With what body do they come?" refers to 
the properties of the resurrection body ; but, like the former, it is a 
question of denial, or at least of strong doubt, and not of mere inquiry. 
It imports that the objector, even if he allowed the possibility of the 
resurrection, could form no idea of any material body which would not 
in its reunion with the spirit be an evil instead of a blessing. It was 
the philosophy of the age, that the body is the prison of the soul ; and 
that the greatest deliverance which men can experience is, to be eter- 
nally freed from their connection with matter. Hence the early phi- 
losophizing sects in the Christian Church, as the Gnostics and Marcion- 
ites, denied the resurrection on the same ground as the philosophers, 
and thought it opposed to that perfection which they hoped to enjoy in 
another world. 

In reply to this objection the apostle shows that God is able, not 
only to raise the human body, but so to modify and change its proper- 
ties as to render it a fit temple for the glorified spirit. He directs our 
attention to some of the various modifications of matter which have 
already resulted from the forming hand of the Creator. " All flesh is 
not the same flesh ; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh 
of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celes- 
tial bodies, and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, 
and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the 
sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for 
one star dhTereth from another star in glory." Hence it follows, that as 
the sun, in all his glorious dress, is as really material as a dod of earth, 

* The adverb 7njf, how, is very frequently employed by the inspired writers in ques- 
tions which imply negation, as Matthew xii, 26: "If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided 
against himself; (irtif) how shall then his kingdom stand?" that is, it cannot stand. 
John v, 47: "If ye believe not his writings, (7ro)f) how shall ye believe my words?" 
1 Tim. iii, 5 : " For if a man know not how to rule his own house, (7rwf) how shall he 
take care of the Church of God ?" In these and many other passages the word 7r£f is 
evidently used in a negative sense, and in this sense it is to be taken in the question, 
"How are the dead raised up?" 



Chap. 3.] THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 619 

these bodies of ours, though now humbled in the dust, may be hereafter 
raised to " glory and honor and immortality." 

In the next place, the apostle calls our attention to the contrast be- 
tween the properties of the body, as it returns to the earth, and those 
with which it shall be invested in the resurrection. "It is sown in 
corruption ; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor ; it is 
raised in glory. It is sown in weakness ; it is raised in power. It is 
sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body.'''' Though in regard 
to the resurrection body we cannot fully comprehend what we shall be, 
yet the language of the apostle places the subject before us in a very 
satisfactory and engaging light. 

1 . Our bodies will be incorruptible and immortal. — In the present 
state the human body is liable to dissolution, and contains in itself the 
principles of decay. It is subject to acute and chronic disease, by which 
life is suddenly or slowly extinguished ; and then the process of putre- 
faction begins, which terminates in the destruction of its organization 
and the separation of its parts. But in the future state it will be inca- 
pable of waste, disease, or death. The body will be as immortal as the 
soul ; " for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal 
must put on immortality." This signifies, not only that we shall die no 
more, for in this sense the wicked will be incorruptible and immortal, 
but that we shall be perfectly free from all the bodily evils which result 
from sin. " There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, 
neither shall there be any more pain." Rev. xxi, 4. 

2. Our bodies loitt be glorious. — Though sown in dishonor, they shall 
be " raised in glory." The word glory, when applied to the body, sug- 
gests the idea of brightness or splendor ; and in this sense we speak of 
the glory of the sun, and of the stars. It is expressly declared that 
Christ " shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto 
his glorious body." Phil, iii, 20. Mark, then, the model of our resurrec- 
tion bodies : it is the body of Jesus Christ; not as he tabernacled among 
men ; not as he appeared to the disciples between his resurrection and 
ascension ; but in his glorified state, " his glorious body." The glory 
of our Lord's humanity was shadowed forth on the mount of transfig- 
uration, when " his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white 
as the light." It was seen by Saul of Tarsus in its meridian splendor, 
when he was arrested in his career of persecution. He was on his way 
to Damascus. The noon-day sun was shining in the cloudless brilliancy 
of an Asiatic sky. But he was suddenly astonished by a light from 
heaven " above the brightness of the smi." It was Jesus that appeared 
to him in " his glorious body."* So also, when St. John, in the isle of 
Patmos, beheld his glorified Lord, " his eyes were as a flame of fire, his 
feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace ; and his counte- 
nance was as the sun shineth in his strength."! 

* See Acts ix, 17 ; xxvi, 16; and 1 Cor. xv, 8. \ See Rev. i, 10-16. 



620 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. [Book VII. 

How glorious, then, will be the bodies of the saints in the future life ! 
" They that be wise," says Daniel, " shall shine as the brightness of the 
firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars 
for ever and ever." And Jesus declares, when speaking of the solemn 
transactions of the great day, " Then shall the righteous shine forth as 
the su?i, in the kingdom of their Father." Matt, xiii, 43. Of this future 
glory we have a faint resemblance in the luster of the face of Moses, after 
he had been with God in the holy mount. Such was the glory of his 
countenance, that the children of Israel "were afraid to come nigh him," 
until " he put a vail on his face." And that extraordinary majesty which 
characterized the face of holy Stephen, seemed to be an earnest of his 
coming glory. " All that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, 
saw his face as it had been the face of an angel." Acts vi, 15. If mortal 
bodies have been clothed with so much glory, what shall be the future 
glory of the saints when their bodies shall be fashioned like the glorious 
body of Jesus Christ ! 

3. Our bodies will be powerful. — Though sown in weakness, they 
shall be " raised in power." In the present life they are subject to 
many infirmities. Their strength is soon exhausted, and they require 
food, and rest, and other means, to restore them. But in the future 
state languor and weariness will be unknown. We have no means to 
estimate the strength of the glorified body, as we know of no resistance 
which it will have to overcome ; but we may perhaps judge of it from a 
circumstance which is revealed concerning the righteous in heaven, that 
they will be uninterruptedly engaged in the service of God. Constant 
employment will cause no fatigue, and sleep will not be necessary to 
renovate their powers. It is plain, therefore, that their bodies will pos- 
sess a degree of vigor and activity of which we can now form no con- 
ception. 

4. Our bodies will be spiritual. — It is a remark which must occur to 
every person, that a spiritual body is an apparent contradiction ; and 
we are therefore under the necessity of taking the word spiritual in an 
unusual sense. The apostle does not mean that the resurrection body, 
like the immortal spirit, will be immaterial ; for then it could not be the 
same body that dies. Nor does he mean that it will be so sublimated 
or etherialized as not to be a body in the proper sense of the word. It 
will be " a body" (aib[ia), but it will be so far spiritual as to be without 
the mere animal functions which are essential to the natural body. The 
meaning of the apostle seems to be this : As the soul has an existence 
independent of animal functions, living without nourishment, and inca- 
pable of decay, sfckness, or death, so will be the body in the resurrection. 
It will be destitute of the peculiar physical organization of flesh and 
blood ; for " flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." It 
must therefore undergo a new modification, in consequence of which, 
though still material, it will be very different from what it now is. It 



Chap. 2.] THE GENEKAL JUDGMENT. 621 

will be a body without the vital functions of the animal economy, living 
in the manner in which we conceive spirits to live, and sustaining and 
exercising its powers without waste, weariness, decay, or the necessity 
of having them recruited by food and sleep. 

We ought to be reminded that there will be a resurrection " both of 
the just and unjust." But with regard to the wicked, the Scriptures 
give us no detailed account of the state and qualities of their bodies. 
We only know that they shall rise "to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt." Hence we may infer, that for them there will be no glorious 
body ; that they will be dragged from their graves by the messengers 
of wrath to the throne of judgment ; and that their whole external ap- 
pearance will correspond with their moral degradation, and be express- 
ive of their mental agony. Well may we say, " Gather not my soul 
with sinners, nor my life with bloody men." When we open our eyes 
on the morning of the resurrection may we behold a smiling Judge ! 

The doctrine of the resurrection should fortify Christians against the 
fear of death. This last enemy is now disarmed, and can do them no 
hurt. As God said to Jacob, " Fear not to go down into Egypt, for I 
will go down with thee into Egypt ; and I will also surely bring thee up 
again ;" so we may say to all. the children of God, Fear not to go down 
into the grave ; for he who watches over your dust will surely bring you 
ivp again, and clothe you with immortality. What brighter hope can 
Christians possess, than this doctrine inspires ? It directs the eye of 
faith to " a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens ;" it pours 
a heavenly radiance on the dark and lonely tomb ; it lights up the smile 
of joy on the lip of death; and, in accents sweet as angels' voices, it 
whispers in the ear of the disconsolate mourner, as he follows to the 
grave the pale remains of the object of his affections, " Thy friend ' shall 
rise again !' " " Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through 
our Lord Jesus Christ !" 



CHAPTER III. 

THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 

The next grand event in the I>ivine administration toward man, sub- 
sequent to the resurrection of the dead, is that of the general judg- 
ment — an event which shall terminate the remedial dispensation, put 
an end to time, and introduce the eternal destinies of men and angels. 
This, therefore, is one of the most solemn and deeply interesting sub- 
jects revealed in the Book of God. Let us consider, 1. The certainty 



622 THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. [Book VII. 

of a general judgment ; and, 2. The solemn transactions of the judg- 
ment itself. 

I. The certainty of a General Judgment. 

There is scarcely a religious truth, except the being of a God, in 
which mankind have been more universally agreed than in the doctrine 
of a future judgment. That we are responsible to God for our moral 
conduct, and that our present state of trial must be followed by one of 
retribution, are dictates of reason as well as of revelation. The cer- 
tainty of a future judgment may be argued, 

1. From the justice of God. — It must be evident to every attentive 
observer, that, in the present state, the justice of God is only partially 
exercised ; and that the common course of things is conducted without 
any marked regard to the character and actions of men. Those whom 
we call good, because their actions are conformable to moral distinc- 
tions, are often left to struggle with poverty and to pine in affliction. 
Even the most illustrious saints, " of whom the world was not worthy," 
were exposed to penury and contempt, as well as to the violence of un- 
godly men. They " had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, 
moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were 
sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wan- 
dered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins; being destitute, afflicted, 
tormented." 

On the other hand it has been observed, that, in many cases, bold 
transgressors — men who set their mouths against the heavens, and give 
loose reins to their appetites and passions, enjoy outward peace, and pass 
their days in the possession of all that earth can afford to make them 
happy. "I was envious at the foolish," says the psalmist, " when I saw 
the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death ; 
but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; 
neither are they plagued like other men. Their eyes stand out with 
fatness ; they have more than heart could wish." What, then, is the 
result of this view of the present state of human affairs ? The conclu- 
sion is inevitable, if we allow God to be just, that, since justice is not 
at present fully displayed, another dispensation will follow, under which 
there will be an exact and impartial retribution ; that a time will come 
when the wrongs of the injured shall be redressed, and proud trans- 
gressors shall bear the punishment due to their crimes. 

2. From the dictates of conscience. — By a law of our nature we are 
compelled to pass sentence on our own moral actions, and to determine 
whether they are right or wrong. This is what we call conscience, 
which is simply the exercise of the judgment upon moral subjects. If 
conscience determines our conduct to be right, we realize a greater or 
less degree of pleasure, satisfaction, or confidence. To this St. John 
alludes when he says, " If our heart condemn us not, then have we con- 
fidence toward God." 1 John iii, 21. But if it determines our conduct 



Chap. 3.] THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 623 

to be wrong, we become the subjects of guilt, shame, and fear. Nor do 
these effects arise from the hope of reward or the fear of punishment in 
the present life ; for they follow the most secret acts of our life, as well 
as those that are done before the world. Moreover, the nearer we 
approach to our latter end, the more impressive is the voice of con- 
science. It is then, especially, that the sinner reflects with horror upon 
his past life, and dreads the consequences of his evil doings. But why 
should the consciousness of a wicked action make a man fear when no 
one knows it but himself? Why should reflection upon a life spent in 
sin fill him with horror and amazement when he is about to leave the 
world ? Why should this happen, we say, if conscience did not strongly 
suggest that God will judge the world in righteousness ? 

3. From the Testimony of Scripture. — To the preceding arguments 
no person of candor will object, so far as they go to prove a future 
retribution. If there is a just God, and if conscience is not a delusive 
faculty, it must ultimately be well with the righteous and ill with the 
wicked. Accordingly, a recompense in another state was expected even 
by those who did not enjoy the benefit of Divine revelation. But the 
reasoning serves only to establish the fact, that men will be recom- 
pensed in another life, not that they will be recompensed by a procedure 
carried on in the presence of assembled generations. It is to revelation 
alone that we are indebted for the knowledge of a general judgment, in 
which the proceedings will take place in the sight of angels and men ; 
when all shall be witnesses of the Divine justice in the reward of the 
righteous and the punishment of the wicked. 

The certainty of this grand and solemn event is evident from the fol- 
lowing Scriptures : " Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence. 
A fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round 
about him. He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, 
that he may judge his people." Psa. 1, 3, 4. " For God shall bring 
every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, 
or whether it be evil." Eccles. xii, 14. "When the Son of man shall 
come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit 
upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all 
nations ; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd 
divideth his sheep from the goats." Matt, xxv, 31, 32. "For we must 
all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." Rom. xiv, 10. "It is 
appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb. ix, 
27. " And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the 
books were opened : and another book was opened, which is the book 
of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were writ- 
ten in the books, according to their works." Rev. xx, 12. These are 
only a few of the Scriptures that touch upon this subject, but they are 
sufficient to show that God has appointed a day in which he will judge 
the world. 



624 THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. [Book VII. 

II. The solemn transactions of the judgment itself. 

In describing the scenes and transactions of the great assize, we must 
be guided alone by the teachings of the holy Scriptures ; for, though it 
is a subject which can hardly fail to rouse the imagination, yet nothing 
but revealed truth can conduct us to sober and safe results. To under- 
stand, therefore, the nature, extent, and leading circumstances of the 
general judgment, we must consider, 

1. Its immediate precursors. — God has declared, "I will show won- 
ders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath ; blood, and fire, 
and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the 
moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come." 
Acts ii, 19, 20. "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the 
moon, and in the stars ; and upon the earth distress of nations, with 
perplexity ; the sea and the waves roaring ; men's hearts failing them 
for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the 
earth ; for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." Luke xxi, 25, 26. 
Thus the earth, the ocean, and the surrounding atmosphere will be 
thrown into universal agitation, and men shall wail because of the 
approaching judgment. But the commotion will extend to the whole 
planetary system. The sun, the moon, and the stars will all exhibit 
signs of nature's approaching dissolution. 

Then " the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with 
the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God." 1 Thess. iv, 16. 
And then " all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come 
forth."* " The sea shall give up the dead which are in it ; and death 
and hell shall deliver up the dead which are in them."f Then also shall 
the living " be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye ;" and 
pass from a mortal to an immortal state. £ 

At the same time Christ " shall send his angels with a great sound of 
a trumpet ; and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, 
from one end of heaven to the other." Matt, xxiv, 31. Not only so, 
"Before him shall be gathered all nations;" and he shall place the 
righteous on his right hand, and the wicked on his left. St. John says, 
" I saw the dead small and great stand before God." These are the chief 
circumstances which are recorded in the Scriptures as immediately pre- 
ceding the general judgment. 

2. The Judge. — The person by whom God will judge the world is 
his only begotten Son. Our Lord himself declares, " The Father judg- 
eth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son ; that all men 
might honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." John v, 22, 23. 
St. Luke asserts that Christ commanded his apostles to testify, " that it is 
he which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead." 
Acts x, 42. With equal clearness St. Paul teaches us that " God shall 
judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ;" Rom. ii, 16; and that 

* John v, 28, 29. f See Kev. xx, 13. % See 1 Cor. xv, 52. 






Chap. 3.] THE GENEKAL JUDGMENT. 625 

Christ " shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and king- 
dom." 2 Tim. iv, 1. 

It is manifestly proper that he who is the Saviour of men should be 
their final judge. It is fit that the promises which he has made and the 
threatenings which he has uttered should be carried into effect by him- 
self; that from his hand those who have submitted to his law should 
receive their reward, and those who have been disobedient their punish- 
ment. It is fit that he should bring to a close the remedial dispensation 
which he established by his own personal interposition. But in addition 
to this, as the general judgment is intended to be a public manifestation 
of the righteousness of the Divine administration, it will be necessary 
that there should be a visible judge, whose proceedings all shall see, and 
whose voice all shall hear. The proper person, therefore, is Jesus Christ, 
who, being both God and man, will appear as our visible judge in his 
glorified humanity. Though the Israelites beheld the awful tokens of 
the Divine presence on Mount Sinai, they only heard the voice of their 
Lawgiver ; but when Jesus shall come in the clouds of heaven to judge 
the human race, " every eye shall see him." Very different, however, 
will be his appearance then from what it was when he lay an infant in 
the manger of Bethlehem ! when he was seen in the form of a servant ! 
when he stood at Pilate's bar ! or when he hung as a malefactor on the 
cross ! " Behold, he cometh with clouds," invested with power and 
ineffable glory ! He " shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty 
angels, in flaming fire" surrounded by "ten thousand of his saints;" 
and his countenance shall be like the sun in his meridian strength. 

3. The persons to be judged. — These, according to the Scriptures, are 
angels and men. That the fallen angels will be subjects of the general 
judgment is evident from 2 Peter ii, 4 : " God spared not the angels that 
sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of 
darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." This fact is still more explic- 
itly stated in the sixth verse of Jude : " The angels which kept not their 
first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting 
chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day" — the day 
of final retribution. 

But at the judgment-seat of Christ will be assembled all men, to be 
judged according to the deeds done in the body ; from Adam, the first 
of the human race, down to the very last one of his numerous posterity. 
All, all will be there. In that vast multitude ranks and distinctions,, 
such as now exist, will be unknown. Those whom birth, or office, or 
wealth, or talents placed at a distance from one another, will then stand 
upon the same level. The great will be without their ensigns of dig- 
nity, and the poor without their marks of abasement ; for then moral 
distinctions alone will be regarded. The oppressor and the oppressed 
will be there ; the former that his violence may be returned upon his 
own head, and the latter that his wrongs may be redressed. Jews and 

40 



626 THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. [Book VII. 

Gentiles, Mohammedans and Christians,, the learned and the illiterate, 
the bond and the free, the high and the low will be there, to render an 
account to Him who is no respecter of persons, and whose omniscient 
eye will distinguish each individual in the immense throng as easily 
as if he were alone. Not one of the righteous will there be forgotten, 
and not one of the wicked shall find a hiding-place from the eye of the 
Judge. 

4. The rule of judgment. — That the judgment will be conducted 
according to some rule or standard seems to be indicated by St. John 
when he says, " I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and 
the books were opened ; and another book was opened, which is the 
book of life ; and the dead were judged out of those things which were 
written in the books, according to their works." Rev. xx, 12. ~No one 
will suppose that books will be literally used on that occasion. It is 
more likely that the term refers to the different dispensations under 
which men have been placed, according to which justice requires that 
they should be tried. That portion of the Divine will which men know, 
or might know, will therefore be the standard according to which they 
shall be finally judged. 

(1.) The heathen will be judged by the law of nature, or the law 
originally given to man as the rule of his conduct. — Some portion of 
this law has been preserved among them, partly by tradition and partly 
by reason ; and though the traces of it are in some instances obliterated, 
and in others greatly obscured, yet enough remains to render them 
accountable beings, and to be the foundation of a judicial trial. St. 
Paul says, "When the Gentiles which have not the law," that is, the 
written law, as the Jews had it, " do by nature the things contained in 
the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves : which 
show the work, of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also 
bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else 
excusing one another." Rom. ii, 14, 15. 

(2.) The Jews shall be judged by the law of Moses and the teaching 
of the prophets. — These Scriptures placed them in much more favorable 
circumstances than the Gentiles for acquiring a knowledge of their 
duty, and for becoming wise unto salvation. They knew their Master's 
will; and if they did it not, they " shall be beaten with many stripes." 
For, " as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law." 
Rom. ii, 12. 

(3.) Christians in general will be judged by the Scriptures of the Old 
and the New Testament; but the Gospel especially, as it confers on 
men superior privileges, will be the standard of their final trial. — The 
apostle informs us that " God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus 
Christ, according to the Gospel ;" and that vengeance shall fall upon 
them who " obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." How 
great will be the account which those will have to render who live 



Cliap. 3.] THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 627 

under the Gospel dispensation. If the Gentile who sins against the 
light of nature is justly punishable ; if he who despised the law of Moses 
" died without mercy, of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought 
worthy " who disregards the Gospel ? " This is the condemnation," 
says our Lord, " that light is come into the world, and men loved dark- 
ness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John iii, 19. 

5. The cause to be tried. — This will be the entire moral conduct and 
character of every human being. The investigation will have respect, 
1. To our actions ; " for God will bring every work into judgment with 
every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." 2. To 
our words. " Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give 
account thereof in the day of judgment; for by thy words thou shalt be 
justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matt, xii, 36, 37. 
And, 3. To our thoughts. Hence Solomon tells us that " the thoughts 
of the righteous are right," and that u the thoughts of the wicked are 
an abomination to the Lord." It is, therefore, evident that our thoughts 
have a moral character, and will be recognized in the judgment of the 
great day. 

But will the sins of the redeemed be remembered in that day, and 
made known in the great congregation ? Some suppose they will not, 
as they are all forgiven in Christ ; and as the Scriptures represent them 
as being blotted out, covered, cast into the depths of the sea, and 
remembered no more. Others suppose that they will be published to 
the assembled universe, that all may know from what a depth of sin and 
misery the grace of God had delivered them. Of this much, however, 
we may be sure, that the righteous will be far from feeling any painful 
sorrow or shame for past transgressions. It will be enough for them to 
know that these were all washed away in the blood of the Lamb, and 
that they shall be remembered against them no more. 

6. The time of the judgment. — With respect to this three things are 
to be observed : 1. That its time is unknown to all created intelligences. 
" Of that day and hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels of heaven." 
Matt, xxiv, 36. Accordingly St. Peter tells us that "the day of the 
Lord will come as a thief in the night." 2 Pet. iii, 10. 2. That its time 
is certain and determined ; for God " hath appointed a day in the which 
he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath 
ordained." Acts xvii, 31. Hence this important period is often spoken 
of in the Scriptures as "the day of judgment," "the day of the Lord," 
and "the great and terrible day." 3. That its time is associated with 
the resurrection of the dead and the end of the world. 

But why, it may be asked, might not every one receive his final sen- 
tence at death, and enter at once upon his endless destiny ? To this it 
would be enough to reply, that God has otherwise ordered it. But if 
we may be allowed to infer, from apparent fitness, the reasons of the 
Divine conduct, we think there are several considerations which indi- 



628 THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. [Book VII. 

cate the propriety of placing the general judgment at the end of the 
world. And, 

(1.) It will be promotive of the declarative glory of God. — In the 
presence of an assembled universe it will then be shown that " the Judge 
of all the earth " is possessed of every possible perfection. No other exhi- 
bition of the Divine character will equal this in glory. Wisdom, justice, 
goodness, and truth will never be so divinely illustrated as in the allot- 
ments of the righteous and the wicked. And the sentence of the 
Judge, whether for acquittal or condemnation, will then be sanctioned 
by the countless millions of angels and redeemed spirits. 

(2.) It is a notorious fact, that the influence of a man's actions may 
continue to operate long after his earthly career is closed. Take, for 
example, such men as St. Paul, Luther, and Wesley. These men, 
though dead, still speak. Their influence lives, and will continue to 
live and bless the world till the latest generation. On the other hand, 
though Hume, Bolingbroke, and Volney have passed away from the 
stage of action, their writings still continue to exert a soul-destroying 
influence among men, and will curse the world through generations yet 
unborn. It is reasonable, therefore, that the judgment should be 
deferred till the end of time ; when the actual influence which every 
man has exerted, as well as his personal doings, can be fully exhibited 
in the view of an intelligent universe. 

7. The final decision. — The declaration of the Judge concerning 
those on his right hand, that they are righteous, and those on his left, 
that they are wicked, will be sufficient to convince all in the immense 
assembly that the sentence is just. There will be no need of witnesses, 
as in human courts, because the Judge is omniscient and unerring in 
his decisions ; and to their rectitude there will be a testimony in the 
bosom of every man. All his p#st actions will be recalled, with all 
their circumstances, and will pass before his mind in rapid succession. 
His conscience will re-echo the voice of the Judge, and all shall 
acknowledge the rectitude of the Divine decision. 

When the investigation is closed, and all are prepared to hear the 
final award, the Judge will say to those on his right hand, " Come, ye 
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world." And to those on the left, " Depart from me, 
ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." 
Then the wicked " shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the 
righteous into life eternal." Matt, xxv, 34, 41, 46. 

In that dreadful hour sentence will also be passed on the angels who 
kept not their first estate, and who are reserved in chains of darkness 
unto the judgment of the great day. The peculiar circumstances of 
their transgression, and the process of judgment in reference to them, 
we do not pretend to know ; but the fact that they will be summoned 
to the general judgment is clearly revealed. We know that they, like 



Chap. 3.] THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 629 

men, are moral agents ; and they will therefore be judged for their vol- 
untary conduct in reference to the will of God. They, too, shall go 
away from the judgment-seat to the place of punishment prepared for 
them, and, with the ungodly of our race, shall suffer " the vengeance of 
eternal fire." 

8. The general conflagration. — The day of judgment will be the 
dying day of this great world ; the day in which its groans of dissolu- 
tion will be heard, and its knell sounded, through the entire universe ; 
the day in which its obsequies will be celebrated with most awful pomp, 
and with supreme, as well as melancholy, grandeur. No sooner will the 
final allotments of angels and men be determined, than flaming fire 
from the presence of the Almighty Judge will sweep in one continued 
volume over our globe, involving it in universal conflagration. "All 
the works of man : his palaces, towers, and temples ; his villages, 
towns, and cities ; his wonderful displays of art, his haughty piles of 
grandeur, and his vast labors of defense and dominion, will be lighted 
up in a single blaze," and vanish forever. 

" Nor will the desolation be limited to the works of men. The earth 
on which they stand ; the hills and mountains, the valleys and plains ; 
the lakes, the rivers, and the ocean, will all in a moment become one 
blazing ruin. The very elements of which they are composed will melt 
loith fervent heat ; and the world itself, so long the seat of sin and 
sorrow, be finally destroyed."* The visible heavens, too, will catch the 
flame, and be converted into a concave of liquid fire, surrounding the 
dissolving earth. Thus Peter tells us that "the heavens shall pass 
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat ; 
the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up." 
2 Pet. iii, 10. 

From this scene of wide-spread destruction the Judge, together with 
all the redeemed from earth, will ascend to the heaven of heavens ; 
where he will present them before his Father as his faithful servants, 
and will crown them with everlasting life. And then will the Judge 
proclaim to the listening universe, " It is done," and the curtain will 
be drawn forever. 

* Dr. Dwight. 



630 ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS OF THE SAINTS. [Book VII. 



CHAPTER IV. 

ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS OF THE SAINTS. 

Having presented, to some extent, the testimony of the Scriptures in 
regard to the great assize ; and having briefly adverted to the final allot- 
ments of the righteous and the 'wicked, we propose, in this chapter, to 
consider more fully the future state of the former. In doing this we 
will call attention, 1. To the place of their future abode ; 2. To the nature 
of their enjoyments; and 3. To their endless duration. 

I. The place of the future abode of the righteous. 

On this, as well as on every other point respecting a future state, we 
are indebted alone to the holy Scriptures for all reliable information. 
The representations which they make of the heavenly world are doubt- 
less figurative, as in the nature of the case they must be ; but they are 
nevertheless intended by the Holy Ghost, as all must admit, to be the 
foundation of our faith and hope in regard to our future home. We 
may therefore safely assert, the Scriptures being our guide, that heaven 
is a place of unspeakable glory. 

1. It is a place. — We know that this comes in collision with a modern 
refinement, which denies the locality of heaven, supposing it to be a state 
of enjoyment, and not a place. But that heaven is a place of enjoyment, 
as well as a state, is evident, 

(1.) From the language of Scripture. — Our Saviour said to his disci- 
ples, " I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place 
for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, 
there ye may be also." John xiv, 2, 3. Now, to say that the home of 
the blessed is not a local heaven, is either directly to contradict the 
teachings of Christ, or to say that the language which he employed in 
relation to this subject is calculated to deceive us. To avoid these 
results we must admit that heaven is a place. It is undeniable that God 
can make any place a heaven, by there revealing himself and communi- 
cating the fullness of his love ; but this is nothing to the purpose. Our 
business is not with speculations respecting his power, but with the 
declarations of his word; and the Scriptures uniformly suppose that 
there is a particular place, which is appointed to be the final abode of 
the righteous. The same fact is evident, 

(2.) From circumstances connected with the future existence of the 
saints. — Were we to think of men in their future state as pure spirits, 
immaterial beings, yet would we be compelled to assign to them both 
individuality and locality. Whatever exists at all, must either exist in 
some portion of space, or it must fill immensity. But no one in his 



Chap. 4.] ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS OF THE SAINTS. 631 

right mind will predicate omnipresence of human spirits : this belongs 
to God alone. It follows, therefore, that the spirits of just men made 
perfect will enjoy a place of happiness, as well as a state. But this fact 
appears still more evident when we consider that the glorified saints 
shall possess material bodies. True, the apostle tells us that the natural 
body which dies shall be raised a " spiritual body ;" but we must not 
suppose that it will be spiritual in the sense of immaterial. It will be a 
body — the same body, and therefore material. When Christ rose from 
the dead, he appeared in the same body in which he had been put to 
death on the cross ; and in this body he ascended to heaven. In like 
manner shall the bodies of the saints be raised from the dead, and glori- 
fied in heaven. 

But to complete the argument it remains to be observed, that the 
glorified saints will constitute one vast assembly. The Saviour asserts 
that " they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the 
north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God." 
Luke xiii, 29. St. John represents this assembly as an innumerable 
multitude, " of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues," 
standing " before the throne, and before the Lamb." 

We will not undertake to determine in what part of God's vast 
dominion the future abode of the righteous is located. We speak of it 
as being above us ; but this language conveys no definite idea. The point 
that is now directly over our heads will, m a few hours, in consequence 
of the earth's revolution, be beneath our feet. Some have conjectured 
that the home of the glorified will be in the sun ; while others think 
that this earth will be restored to its paradisaical state, and become the 
future home of the redeemed. But these and all such conjectures are 
more curious than useful ; and as Divine revelation affords no certain 
light upon this point, it becomes us to restrain our imagination, and 
to be content with what God has seen proper to reveal. The only con- 
clusion which the Scriptures seem to warrant in relation to the locality 
of heaven is, that it is entirely beyond the limits of the visible creation. 
Thus St. Paul teaches that Christ " ascended up far above all heavens." 
Eph. iv, 10. By the term heavens, here, we are doubtless to understand, 
according to the notions of the Jews, the aerial and the starry heavens. 
Beyond these, therefore, is the home of the blessed; and to this the 
apostle alludes when he informs us that he was " caught up to the third 
heaven?'' 

That there is a place where God eminently dwells, and where he 
reveals himself to his intelligent creatures in a most glorious manner, is 
an opinion which has prevailed among Jews and Christians, Greeks and 
Romans ; in a word, among all nations and in every age. This opinion 
is confirmed by Divine revelation. "I dwell," saith the Almighty, " in 
the high and holy place.'''' This is what our Saviour calls Ins " Father's 
house," the immediate habitation of the Deity. It is the place into 



632 ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS OF THE SAINTS. [Book VII. 

which Jesus entered after his resurrection, and where he reigns King 
upon the holy hill of Zion. And this is the place, in whatever part of 
the universe it may be, into which the righteous shall be admitted after 
death, and in which, after the general judgment, they shall enjoy a 
blissful immortality. Our Lord says, " Where I am, there shall also my 
servants be." 

2. Heaven is a place of unspeakable gloey. — The most striking- 
figures are employed by the sacred writers to convey to our minds 
some adequate conception of the glory and grandeur of the heavenly 
world. Have we felt a deep interest in the account which the sacred 
historian gives of the original Paradise ? Has our imagination lingered 
with inspiring delight upon its verdant fields, its flowery meads, its deli- 
cious fruits, and its limpid streams ? Have the serenity of its sky, the 
splendor of its sunshine, the sweetness of its atmosphere, and the beauty 
of its scenery, awakened in us the most romantic visions ? All this, 
and a thousand times more, we may associate with the home of the 
redeemed. "To him that overcometh," says Christ, "I will give to 
eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." 
Rev. ii, 7. 

St. John gives a most glowing and sublime description of the heavenly 
Paradise. He speaks of it as an extensive and magnificent city. Its 
foundations are garnished with all manner of precious stones. It extends 
twelve thousand furlongs in every direction. Its walls are of jasper, 
and its buildings and streets are of pure and pellucid gold. Its gates 
are pearls, and its watchmen angels. "The Lord God Almighty and 
the Lamb are the temple of it." The throne of God is in the midst of 
it. Out of this throne proceeds a pure river of water, on the banks of 
which grow the trees of immortality. It needs not the light of the sun, 
nor of the moon ; for the glory of God and the presence of the Lamb 
shall enlighten it with everlasting day.* 

Allowing these representations of the heavenly world to be entirely 
figurative, we are nevertheless bound to conclude, if we would not 
charge God with deceiving us, that it is a place of unspeakable glory 
and grandeur ; and that it is eminently fitted to afford delight to its 
holy inhabitants. Below the inspired description it cannot fall ; but it 
may rise infinitely above it ; for human language is too poor fully to 
describe heavenly things. 

II. The nature of heavenly enjoyments. 

On this subject we have no very clear and definite knowledge ; and 
from the nature of things it must be expected that much obscurity will 
rest upon it, until these mortal bodies shall have put on immortality. 
Men are naturally inclined to think that the joys of heaven will some- 
what resemble the pleasures of the present life. Hence many hope to 
obtain and enjoy beyond the grave that kind of gratification which they 

* See Rev. xxi, 10-26. 



Chap. 4.] ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS OF THE SAINTS. 633 

hold most dear on earth. The untaught Indian supposes that heaven is 
a place abounding in game, and affording every desirable facility in his 
hunting excursions. The enslaved African expects after death to visit 
his native land, and to enjoy the society of his relatives. Men who live 
in the indulgence of passion and appetite expect to find a heaven of 
sensual delights. The indolent, and those who are exhausted by labor, 
regard rest, or freedom from employment, as the greatest good, and 
they therefore suppose that the bliss of heaven will consist in a state of 
quiescence ; while the man of science, eagerly bent upon mental improve- 
ment, promises himself rich enjoyment in the acquisition of knowledge. 

It must be admitted, however, that the happiness of heaven, though 
sometimes represented by earthly pleasures, must be of a nature entirely 
different from the happiness of earth. The richest pleasures of earth 
are insufficient to satisfy an immortal spirit. Experience shows that 
all earthly joys are of such a nature, that after they have been possessed 
for a short time they lose their power to please, and are followed by 
satiety, if not disgust. We conclude, therefore, that the future happi- 
ness of the saints will be more pure, more spiritual, and of an infinitely 
higher nature, than anything that earth can afford. 

Now, though the nature of future happiness can be known by us only 
in part while we sojourn below, yet from the holy Scriptures we may 
form such ideas of it as are in a good degree satisfactory. Two things, 
at least, are evident : firsts that we shall be entirely delivered from the 
evils of this life ; and, secondly, that we shall be made partakers of a 
large amount of positive good. 

1. The saints shall be entirely delivered from the evils of this life. — 
They shall be delivered, 

(1.) From bodily infirmities. — These bodies of ours are the seat of 
much affliction. They are subjected to hunger and thirst, to weariness 
and pain, and are liable to a thousand accidents, that often render human 
life a burden. But they who shall be accounted worthy to attain to the 
resurrection of the just shall be entirely freed from all these evils. 
Their bodies shall be refined, immortalized, and glorified ; affording 
ample capacity for holy action and high enjoyment. " They shall hunger 
no more, neither thirst any more." Rev. vii, 16. " God shall wipe away 
all tears from their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neither sor- 
row, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain." Rev. xxi, 4. 
No helpless infant shall there be seen, demanding the anxious care of a 
fond parent — no decrepid man, bowing under the weight of toilsome 
years — no emaciated frame or pallid countenance ; but eternal youth 
and blooming health shall be enjoyed alike by all. 

(2.) From mental imbecilities. — That the effects of the fall have very 
much abridged the intellectual powers of man admits of no doubt. 
Our scanty minds, even at the expense of much labor and study, can 
gain a knowledge of but a few things, and these are known very 



634 ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS OF THE SAINTS. [Book VII. 

imperfectly. But in heaven the soul will commence its career anew. 
It will not only be restored to that intellectual strength and clear- 
ness of mental vision which Adam possessed in his state of innocence, 
but it will, in all probability, be elevated far above his primitive capa- 
bility. " Now we see through a glass, darkly ; but then face to face. 
Now we know in part ; but then shall we know even as also we are 
known" 

(3.) From all moral depravation. — It is the duty of the Christian, and 
it is also his privilege, even on earth, to love God supremely, and to 
obey his commandments. But though he may, through grace, arrive at 
this exalted state of holiness, yet he feels the need of continual watch- 
fulness and constant exertion against the proneness of his nature to 
wander from God. But in heaven this shall not exist. There the 
redeemed shall enjoy a confirmed state of holiness, without a single dis- 
position contrary to the will of God. They shall be pillars in the temple 
of God, to go no more out. The whole man, body and soul, shall be 
perfectly delivered from the corruptions of the fall, and shall be restored 
to the highest possible state of moral purity. Their robes shall be made 
" white in the blood of the Lamb." 

(4.) From the society of the wicked, and from beholding their ungodly 
deeds. — That the company and practice of the ungodly are a most fruit- 
ful source of affliction to the pious, both Scripture and experience declare. 
They cannot hear the name of God blasphemed, or see his holy Sabbaths 
profaned, without feeling deeply pained. They cannot witness the 
gross inattention to our holy religion, which almost everywhere abounds, 
without dropping a tear. They cannot look upon their fellow-men, who 
are every moment exposed to eternal death, without heaving a sigh. 
But in that better land all these causes of affliction shall be forever 
removed. The heavenly society will be of one heart, and will all be 
engaged in one employment. "There the wicked shall cease from 
troubling." 

(5.) From the temptations of the devil. — The holiest of men, while 
on earth, are exposed to his fiery darts. The language of Christ to the 
disciples is true in regard to all Christians : " Satan desires to have 
you, that he might sift you as wheat." Luke xxii, 31. Even Christ him- 
self did not escape his hellish malice ; and in this respect the servant 
may not hope to be above his Lord. But when we turn our attention 
to the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, we behold a company of 
redeemed and triumphant spirits who are forever beyond the reach 
and power of Satan. He may follow the good man to the very verge 
of the grave, but beyond this he cannot go. The hour of dissolution is 
the honr of the Christian's victory — the hour in which he shall be 
placed beyond the power of infernal agency. 

2. The saints in heaven shall be made partakers of a large amount 
of positive good. — To deliver men from all the evils of the present life, 



Chap. 4.] ETEKNAL BLESSEDNESS OF THE SAINTS. 635 

would be to confer upon them a great salvation. But the abounding 
grace of God stops not here. He himself becomes the portion of his 
people, and whatever he can bestow to heighten and perfect their bliss 
will be most freely given. Christ declares that his servants shall enter 
into the joy of their Lord, and shall wear a crown of life. St. Paul 
speaks of the positive bliss of heaven as an "eternal weight of glory /" 
and St. Peter represents it under the figure of an inheritance which is 
incorruptible and undefiled, and that u fadeth not away.'''' But there is 
perhaps no passage of Scripture in which it is more forcibly represented 
than in Psalm xvi, 11 : "In thy presence is fullness of joy ; at thy right 
hand there are pleasures for evermore." 

(1.) Glorified saints will enjoy pleasures ; by which we are to under- 
stand the perfect gratification of all their desires, whether of body or 
mind. — There will be no desires among them but such as are in strict 
accordance with the will of God, and they shall be gratified to their 
full extent. They will derive pleasure, 1. From social intercourse; for 
" they shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the king- 
dom of heaven." Matt, viii, 11. They shall be associated with Enoch, 
and Moses, and Job, and Isaiah, and David, and the apostles of our 
Lord, and all the glorified from earth, together with the angels that 
kept their first estate. 2. From the employments of heaven; for they 
shall "serve God day and night in his temple." Rev. vii, 15. To wor- 
ship and adore the Triune God will be at once their leading employ- 
ment and their highest bliss. 3. From the visions of heaven. Whither- 
soever the eye is directed, it will light upon objects of symmetry, beauty, 
glory, and grandeur; but the most entrancing object of the heavenly 
world will be the Lord Jesus Christ in his glorified humanity. Accord- 
ing to his own prayer addressed to the Father, his people shall be with 
him where he is, that they may behold his glory ;* and St. John declares 
expressly that they " shall see him as he is." 1 John iii, 2. He " shall 
dwell among them ;" and he " shall feed them, and shall lead them unto 
living fountains of waters." Rev. vii, 17. 

(2.) They will realize a fullness of joy. — Joy consists in that vivid 
pleasure or delight which results from the reception and possession of 
what is peculiarly grateful. The humble Christian, even in this vale of 
tears, may sometimes possess a "joy unspeakable and full of glory;" 
but the glorified in heaven shall realize & fullness of joy which never can 
be experienced in this life. It will be joy raised to its highest degree 
of perfection, and expressing itself in songs of heaven-inspired rapture 
and delight. They will unite in ascribing " glory and dominion unto 
him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood ;" 
while the chorus of that vast multitude shall be heard " as the voice of 
many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia ; 
for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." But, 

* See John xvii, 24. 



636 ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS OF THE SAINTS. [Book VII. 

III. The blessedness of the saints in heaven will be endless 
IN ITS dueation. 

The endless duration of the future life is as necessary as the life itself; 
because all that we have stated respecting it could not amount to true 
felicity if we had not an absolute security of its endless continuance. 
The very possibility of an end would mar the felicity of heaven ; but it 
is an eternal redemption, of which Jesus Christ is the author. When 
the saints ascend to heaven in their glorified bodies, they enter upon a 
career that shall never be finished. Ages will run on more rapidly than 
hours among mortals ; but thousands of ages will take nothing from 
their felicity. It will then be as true of them as it is of God himself, 
that their " years shall have no end," 

That the future life will be eternal, is most explicitly taught in the 
Scriptures. He who purchased it for us, and has promised it to us, fre- 
quently calls it eternal life. It is described as " everlasting habitations," 
Luke xvi, 9 ; as a " house eternal in the heavens," 2 Corinthians v, 1 ; 
and as a " continuing city," Hebrews xiii, 14 : it is expressed by " eternal 
salvation," Hebrews v, 9 ; "eternal glory," 1 Peter v, 10 ; and by "the 
everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 
i, 11. And lest we should be discouraged by any lame or equivocal 
interpretation of this subject, it is further explained in such terms as 
cannot be mistaken. Our Saviour says, " If a man keep my saying, he 
shall never see death." John viii, 51. And again: "Whosoever liveth 
and believeth in me shall never die." John xi, 26. The life, therefore, 
of the saints in heaven will be endless in its duration. 

It is highly probable that the happiness of the redeemed in heaven, 
however full and perfect at first, will nevertheless be progressive. We 
know that the capacities of the soul for holy enjoyment are increased on 
earth by holy exercises ; and may we not conclude that the continuance of 
such exercises, under more favorable circumstances, will still enlarge these 
capacities ? Again, the desires of the soul for happiness are constantly 
increasing in this life, and will probably increase in eternity. Hence, as 
the capacities for enjoyment will be progressive, and the sources of grati- 
fication inexhaustible, an ever-growing happiness will necessarily follow. 

Here the question is sometimes asked, Will the saints in heaven know 
one another ? To this we answer in the affirmative ; for, first, they will 
certainly retain a remembrance of their past life. Without this they 
would not know that they had lived on earth at all. Nor can we con- 
ceive how they should celebrate the praise of God for his redeeming 
grace if they did not remember that they formerly lived in this world, 
and that they derived the knowledge of Christ from the preaching of 
the Gospel, and were members of his Church ; all of which suppose the 
remembrance of time, places, persons, and other circumstances. But, 
secondly, this knowledge is clearly implied in the language of St. Paul : 
" For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing ? Are not even 



Chap. 5.] ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 637 

ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming ?" 1 Thess. ii, 19. 
He must therefore have expected to know the persons whom he addressed 
in the kingdom of heaven ; and if so, we too may indulge the rational 
and scriptural hope of recognizing, in that better land, the associates of 
our earthly pilgrimage. 



CHAPTEE V. 

ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 

We come now to the investigation of one of the most solemn subjects 
within the entire range of Christian theology — the endless punishment 
of the finally impenitent. In order to present the doctrine in as clear a 
light as our limits will allow, we will consider the three following ques- 
tions: 1. Will the finally impenitent be punished in a future state? 
2. What will be the nature of the future punishment of the wicked ? 
and, 3. Will it be endless ? 

I. Will the finally impenitent be punished in a fttthee state ? 

Universalists teach that all punishment for sin is restricted to the 
present life. They hold that*all the judgment taught in the Scriptures 
takes place in this world, and that every sinner is punished here in 
exact proportion to the number and magnitude of his sins, according to 
the decisions of Divine justice. That this theory of retribution is con- 
trary to truth may be shown by various considerations. 

1. It is disproved by daily matters of fact. — It is most evident, so 
far as our knowledge and observation extend, that God does not reward 
men in this world according to their works. It is true, he so administers 
his government as to show, in many instances even in this life, his appro- 
bation of righteousness and disapprobation of sin ; but the sinner is not 
always the most wretched here, nor is the saint always the most happy. 
Who does not know that ungodly men sometimes enjoy a long life of 
health, outward peace, and worldly prosperity;, while many of the most 
pious, so far as we can judge, pass all their days in poverty and affliction ? 
To suppose, therefore, that what men suffer or enjoy in the present life 
is an index to their true moral character, is to ignore all acknowledged 
distinctions in morals, and to set aside our Lord's rule of judging, "By 
their fruits ye shall know them," not by what they suffer or enjoy. 

2. It is in direct opposition to the testimony of Scripture. — " Where- 
fore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power ? Their seed 
is established in their sight with them, and their offspring before their 
eyes. Their houses are safe from fear, neither is the rod of God upon 
themP Job xxi, 7-9. " I was envious," says the psalmist, " at the pros- 



638 ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. [Book VII. 

perity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death ; but their 
strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men ; neither are 
they plagued like other men." Psa. lxxiii, 3-5. And so far was David 
from believing that God punishes all sin in the present life, that he 
plainly declares, u He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded 
us according to our iniquities." Psa. ciii, 5, 6. We see, therefore, both 
from matters of fact and from the testimony of the Scriptures, that the 
wicked are not punished in this life according to the number and mag- 
nitude of their sins. Nor will it relieve the case to say, that though 
God does not fully punish sinners during life, he does it in death, by 
suddenly cutting them off and destroying them from the earth. For, 
if the death of the wicked were more sudden than that of others, which 
it generally is not, this circumstance, instead of being any punishment 
for sin, would only favor them with a more sudden transition from the 
sorrows of earth to the joys of heaven. 

But it is assumed by Universalists that men suffer the full penalty of 
all their crimes in the compunctions of conscience. To this assumption, 
however, there are insuperable objections: 1. It is wholly gratuitous, 
as there is not a single passage of Scripture in which the doctrine is 
asserted. 2. It is a question which cannot be determined by the human 
mind in the absence of Divine revelation; for God only knows the 
demerit of sin, and what is, in every case, its just and full penalty. 
Nor is any man capable of comprehending the consciousness of another, 
or of rightly estimating the real quantum of his suffering or enjoyment. 
To assert, therefore, that every man suffers in this life in exact propor- 
tion to the number and magnitude of his sins, is to assert what God has 
not revealed, and what no man knows or can know. 3. The theory is 
contradicted by human experience ; for many a scrupulous saint suffers 
more in his moral feelings for inadvertent errors, or even for unavoida- 
ble imperfections, than he did in an unconverted state for his most 
heinous crimes. The youth suffers more from the compunctions of con- 
science on account of the first profane oath, than he does on account of 
a score when he becomes practiced in profanity. Indeed, the universal 
experience of the world is, that continuance in crime weakens the voice 
of conscience^ hardens the heart, and makes it more and more unfeel- 
ing, as if " seared with a hot iron." 

3. It is absurd in itself. — It restricts the punishment of sin to the 
present life, and maintains, at the same time, that every sin is punished 
according to the full demand of Divine justice. But it will not be 
denied that men sometimes die in the very act of transgression, with- 
out a single moment to suffer for their crimes. Nay, in many cases, 
their very last act is the wicked and sudden destruction of their own 
life. Where, then, do such persons bear the full penalty of those acts 
of wickedness ? To say that they do not suffer for them according to 
their demerit, contradicts Universalism ; and to say, according to this 



Chap. 5.] ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 639 

theory, that they suffer for them in this life, contradicts matter of fact 
and common sense. It follows, therefore, that Universalism must either 
deny the criminality of suicide and other acts of wickedness which men 
commit in the moment of death, or admit the doctrine of future retri- 
bution. 

4. It subverts the whole scheme of salvation by grace, through faith 
in Jesus Christ. — In proof of this it is only necessary to remark, 1 . That 
the Scriptures everywhere represent our salvation as a gracious act on 
the part of God — a free and unmerited gift. But if men suffer in this 
life the full penalty of all their evil doings, to talk of salvation by grace 
is most absurd ; unless we confound the Divine attributes, and say that 
grace and justice are the same thing. According to this theory, God 
could not inflict upon men any kind or degree of suffering in the future 
life without being unjust ; consequently, their eternal salvation results 
from the justice of God, and not from Divine grace. 2. That the Scrip- 
tures teach the doctrine of salvation by faith ; but if Universalism is 
true, faith can no more secure our eternal happiness than the most invet- 
erate infidelity. Though the Bible declares, "He that believeth not 
shall be damned," yet, according to Universalism, a man may despise 
Jesus Christ, blaspheme the Holy Ghost, reject the entire system of 
revealed religion, curse God in death, and be as sure of holiness and 
happiness in heaven after death as was St. John or St. Paul. 3. That 
the Scriptures declare Christ to be our Saviour ; but the theory which 
we oppose sets aside this important truth of the Gospel. Indeed, it is 
perfectly absurd to talk of salvation in any way on the ground taken by 
Universalists. For, according to every rational definition of the term, 
as used in theology, salvation is altogether excluded by the supposition 
that God deals with sinners here as their sins deserve. 

Salvation necessarily presupposes loss, suffering, or danger; for it is 
absurd to talk of salvation from evils which have no existence. As sin is 
the great evil on account of which man needs a Saviour, if he is actually 
saved by Christ, it must be either from the love and practice of sin in 
this life, or from its penal consequences, or both. But, according to Uni- 
versalism, Christ does not save men in any of these respects. First, he 
does not save them from the love and practice of sin in this life ; for we 
have the testimony of facts everywhere before our eyes, that many live in 
the habit of vice and die in rebellion against God. Secondly, he does 
not save men from the penal consequences of sin, for these are inflicted 
upon every sinner in exact proportion to the number and magnitude of 
his sins. And as all punishment for sin is restricted to this life, no man 
can be saved from a liability to future punishment, because no such lia- 
bility ever did or ever can exist. It follows, therefore, according to Uni- 
versalist principles, that the happiness of heaven will be independent 
of Divine grace, of faith in Christ, and of salvation from sin. 

Now, since there is grace, mercy, and forgiveness in our salvation ; 



640 ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. [Book YII. 

since these are exercised through Christ as our Saviour, and received 
by faith ; and since many die in sin and unbelief, the conclusion is irre- 
sistible, that men do not suffer the just penalty of their sins in the pres- 
ent life, but that their final award will be in another world. Hence the 
finally impenitent will be punished in a future state. The truth of this 
proposition is manifest even from what has already been said ; but we 
will further support it by the two following arguments : 

(1.) The Scriptures speak of retribution as being subsequent to the 
general resurrection. — " And many of them that sleep in the dust of the 
earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and 
everlasting contempt.'''' Dan. xii, 2. It is not possible that the prophet 
is here speaking of a spiritual resurrection ; for certainly none of the 
subjects of a spiritual resurrection are raised to " shame and everlasting 
contempt"* 

"The hour is coming," says our Lord, "in which all that are in the 
graves shall hear his voice, and come forth ; they that have done good 
unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the 
resurrection of damnation" John v, 28, 29. Hence says the apostle, 
" There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." 
Acts xxiv, 15. To apply these Scriptures to anything else than the 
general resurrection of the dead at the last day is to wrest them from 
their plain and most obvious meaning, and to adopt a mode of inter- 
pretation which would unsettle the meaning of almost every passage in 
the Bible. But as they evidently refer to this grand event, they must 
settle forever, in the mind of every one who is willing to be governed 
in his faith by inspired testimony, the question of future retribution. 

(2.) The Scriptures connect future rewards and punishments with the 
general judgment. — They teach us that " when the Son of Man shall 
come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him," he will separate 
the righteous from the wicked. And he will say to the former, "Come, 
ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
the foundation of the world ;" and to the latter, " Depart from me, ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."f 
" The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and 
to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." And 
again, " The heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word 
are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and 
perdition of ungodly men."| 

We are aware that Universalists, in order to evade the force of this 
argument, reject the doctrine of a general judgment; but this only 
proves that they are prepared to reject any doctrine or fact which 

* Though the term "many," used by the prophet, might not seem, at first sight, to 
embrace all mankind, yet such must be its import; and in this sense it is employed in 
Romans v, 15, 19, and in Hebrews ix, 28. 

f See Matt, xxv, 31-46. % 2 Peter ii, 9; hi, t. 



Chap. 5.] ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 641 

stands opposed to their theory. It is impossible, however, to confine 
all judgment to the present life, while it stands recorded that "it is 
appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb. ix, 27. 
Moreover, it is expressly taught in Scripture that Jesus Christ is 
to be the judge of the dead as well as of the living. Thus Peter says, 
" He commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it 
is he which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead." 
Acts x, 42. And St. Paul informs us that he " shall judge the quick 
and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom." 2 Tim. iv, 1. This 
passage, while it ascribes the final judgment of all mankind to Jesus 
Christ, also specifies the time — " at his appearing and kingdom." 

We have thus traced the punishment of the wicked to another world. 
We have seen them rise in the general resurrection to shame, contempt, 
and condemnation. We have seen them at " the judgment of the great 
day," sentenced with awful solemnity, and with the curse of the Judge 
resting upon them, to dwell in " everlasting fire." And now the ques- 
tion arises, 

II. What will be the mature of their future punishatent ? 

In replying to this question it will be proper, in the first place, to con- 
sider the terms in which the future punishment of the wicked is 
expressed in the sacred Scriptures ; and secondly, to deduce from the 
inspired account of this awful subject some sober and legitimate conclu- 
sions in regard to its nature. And, 

1. The terms in which future punishment is expressed in the sacred 
Scriptures. — A state of future punishment is so different from anything 
with which we are acquainted in the present world, that it can only be 
described by comparing it with such things as are within our reach. It 
is therefore necessarily exhibited to us in language which is at least 
partly figurative; but the figures employed give us a most terrible 
description of the future condition of the wicked. 

(1.) It is called "the second deaths — Death is the most distressing 
evil that men suffer in the present world. It is, therefore, made by 
every nation the last infliction of punitive justice for crimes committed 
against human government. It is surrounded with gloom and terror, 
and replete with agony. It probably creates more anxiety in the human 
mind than all the other calamities which exist in this world of suffering. 
What, then, must it be to die forever, to suffer the pangs of death 
through clays, and years, and centuries, and thus to spend eternity in 
dying ? 

(2.) It is called "darkness" and "the blackness of darkness;" 
Jude vi, 13. Our Lord calls it "outer darkness /" Matthew viii, 12. 
And St. Peter describes it by " chains of darkness" and " the mist 
of darkness ," which is "reserved forever" for the ungodly; 2 Peter 
ii, 4, 7. — Thus the Scriptures represent the melancholy lot of the wicked 
in the future world as a state of eternal darkness ; of darkness resera- 

41 



642 ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF- THE WICKED. [Book VII. 

bling the deep midnight of the grave, lengthening onward from age to 
age, and terminated by no succeeding day. 

(3.) It is spoken of as a state of suffering from the action of fire. — 
Hence our Lord informs us that the wicked shall be cast into " a furnace 
of fire," Matthew xiii, 42 ; and St. John, that they " shall have their 
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Rev. xxi, 8. 
This fire is spoken of as being " everlasting," Matthew xxv, 41 ; 
" unquenchable," Luke iii, 1 1 ; and " eternal," Jude vii. 

Such are the representations which the Holy Ghost has seen proper 
to make, of the future condition of the finally impenitent. Let us then 
proceed, 

2. To deduce from this inspired description a few sober and legiti- 
mate conclusions in regard to the nature of future punishment. — We 
have already admitted that the language of Scripture on this subject is 
more or less figurative ; but whether it is figurative or otherwise, of one 
thing we may be sure, that it was intended to convey ideas strictly con- 
formable to truth. God can no more make a false impression on the 
human mind by the use of figures, than he can lead men into error by 
the plainest and most positive declarations ; for both would be alike 
contrary to the Divine veracity. Nor will his goodness, any more 
than his truth, allow him to alarm his moral creatures with groundless 
fears, or to represent the consequences of sin as more dreadful than they 
really are. We may therefore safely conclude, that the future state of 
the wicked, as to its general character, will be one of intense suffering ; 
for, to suppose that it will be more tolerable than absolute darkness, the 
agonies of death, and the action of fire, is virtually to charge God with 
the utterance of falsehood, and to set up our own standard in opposi- 
tion to Divine revelation. This intense suffering, which will be the 
future portion of the ungodly, will arise, 

(1.) From what is called the punishment o/loss. — They shall be cut 
off from all the enjoyments of earth, from all good and agreeable society, 
and from all happiness, and ease, and rest, and hope. They shall be 
excluded from all the means of grace, and from heaven and all its joys. 
" He that believeth not the Son shall not see life." John iii, 36. " The 
unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor. vi, 9. They 
shall be separated from God, which is clearly indicated in the language 
of Christ, " Depart from me, ye cursed." Thus the wicked shall be 
driven away in their wickedness "from the presence of the Lord." 
What thought can be more insupportable than this, that all good is for- 
ever lost ? Yet such will be the loss of all who die in sin. 

(2.) From the punishment of sense. — To a consciousness of the loss 
of all good is to be added the endurance of extreme positive misery. 
Accordingly we are taught, that " at the end of the world," when the 
wicked shall be " cast into the furnace of fire, there shall be wailing and 
gnashing of teeth.''' 1 Matt, xiii, 50. This awful truth is also set forth in 



Chap. 5.] ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 643 

the declaration, " Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," 
Mark ix, 44 ; and in our Lord's assertion respecting the rich man, " In 
hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." Luke xvi, 23. These posi- 
tive sufferings will result from remorse of conscience, from the place of 
their abode, from wicked society, from a sense of the wrath of God, 
which will be the most dreadful ingredient in their cup of misery, and 
from utter despair. But we now inquire, 

ILL Will the fltlke puxishment of the wicked be endless? 

The affirmative of this question is evidently the doctrine of the Bible, 
as we shall soon prove ; but before we do this it will be proper to notice 
two different theories respecting future punishment which stand 
opposed to the orthodox view. These are restorationism and annihila- 
tionism. We will consider, 

1 . The theory of the restarationists. — They maintain that all future 
punishment is disciplinary and reformatory; and that, however long and 
intensely sinners may be punished in the world to come, they shall ulti- 
mately be brought to a state of holiness and happiness in heaven. Those 
who adopt this notion are called restorationists, to distinguish them 
from that class of Universalists who restrict all punishment for sin to 
the present life. That this theory is untenable the following remarks 
will show. 

(1.) It is based upon the mere assirmption that all future punishment 
is disciplinary and reformatory, a doctrine which is nowhere taught in 
the Scriptures. — But this is not all ; it supposes that men may be in a 
state of retribution and of probation at the same time. For, it would 
be absurd to talk of discipline and reformation in regard to those who 
are not in a probationary state ; but it is equally absurd to suppose that 
men who are in a state of retribution can be at the same time on trial. 
We might as well suppose that the redeemed in heaven are still in a 
state of probation, and may therefore fall, as that sinners in hell are in 
this state, and may therefore rise to the joys of heaven. 

But this supposed reformatory tendency of penal sufferings is in oppo- 
sition to the teachings of the Bible, as is evident from what is said con- 
cerning the fallen angels. When the Gospel was written, they had been 
suffering punishment at least four thousand years. Yet they were then 
no less hostile to their Creator, and actuated by no less malice against 
his moral creatures than at the beginning. Moreover, men of all suc- 
ceeding ages are warned by Christ and his apostles against their false- 
hood and seduction, because in every age they would be false and 
seductive. And at the judgment of the great day they will be con- 
signed to " everlasting fire ;" consequently, until that period, their 
punishment will have no good effect upon their moral character. Nor 
have we any reason to believe that penal sufferings will exert a more 
salutary influence upon men than upon fallen angels ; and if so, resto- 
rationism is indeed a hopeless theory. 



644 ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. [Book VII. 

That the punishment of sinners is not always disciplinary, is fully 
established by the course of the Divine administration in this world. To 
place this beyond doubt it is only necessary to refer to the deluge, to 
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and of Pharaoh and his host, 
and to the cases of Nadab and Abihu, of Achan, of the house of Eli, and 
of Ananias and Sapphira. But if God inflicts punishments upon sinners 
in this world which are evidently not intended to be reformatory, as 
these references prove, such punishments cannot be inconsistent with the 
principles of the Divine government ; and if not, what right have we to 
suppose that future punishments will be of an opposite character? They 
are certainly not exhibited in the Scriptures as disciplinary, but as 
penal. 

(2.) Restorationists assume that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of 
the final salvation of all mankind. — This they attempt to prove by quot- 
ing those passages which declare, 1. That all men shall be blessed in 
the seed of Abraham.* 2. That Christ died for all men, and. is the 
Saviour of all men.f 3. That God wills the salvation of all. J 4. That 
to him every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess.§ And, 5. That 
death itself shall be destroyed.! 

It would be easy to show, however, by a careful examination of all 
such passages, that they do not prove the doctrine in support of which 
they are adduced ; but such an examination is uncalled for at this point. 
It is only necessary to remark, 1 . That the blessing which comes upon 
all men through the seed of Abraham, does not necessarily imply the 
actual salvation of all. 2. That though Christ died for all men, and is, 
in this respect as well as in others, the Saviour of all men, yet he is the 
special Saviour only " of those that believe." 3. That God wills the 
salvation of all men, but only in the appointed way, that is, " through 
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth," and not whether they 
believe in Christ or not. 4. That all men shall bow to Christ and acknowl- 
edge him, either by a voluntary reception of his grace and salvation, 
or by a constrained subjection to his avenging justice; and, 5. That 
death shall be destroyed when " all that are in the graves shall hear " the 
voice of Christ " and come forth ; they that have done good, unto the 
resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection 
of damnation." 

(3.) Restorationists attempt to support their theory by the allega- 
tion, that endless punishment is incompatible with the Divine perfec- 
tions. — It would be unjust^ say they, for God to inflict on men endless 
punishment for temporary crimes. To this opinion it is a sufficient 
reply, that it is founded on ignorance. No finite mind can fully com- 

* Gen. xxii, 17, 18 ; xxvi, 4 ; xxviii, 14 ; Gal. iii, 8-16. 

f 2 Cor. iv, 14, 15 ; 1 Tim. iv, 10; Heb. ii, 9. 

% Ezek. xxxiii, 11 ; 1 Tim. ii, 4 ; 1 Pet. iii, 9. 

§ Isa. xlv, 23 ; Phil, ii, 10, 11. || Isa. xxv, 8 ; 1 Cor. xv, 26, 54. 



Chap. 5.] ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 645 

prehend the demerit of sin ; and therefore, for aught we know to the 
contrary, every sin may justly deserve endless punishment. God has 
taught us, by his moral administration, that sin both deserves and 
receives punishment ; and as to the intensity and duration of this pun- 
ishment, he alone is competent to determine. 

But it is said that endless punishment is inconsistent with the mercy 
of God. We must not forget, however, that God is just, as well as 
merciful. Nor are we to suppose that the mercy of God is a passion 
by which he is "so moved and overcome by seeing a creature in misery 
that he cannot bear to see justice fully executed. Such a supposition 
would be derogatory to the Divine character, and contrary io facts ; for 
we see that God, in his providence, inflicts upon men great calamities 
even in the j>resent life. But the exercise of justice, so far from being 
conflictive with Divine mercy, is to be regarded as a proof of it. Hence, 
the psalmist gives thanks " to Him that smote Egypt in their firstborn ; 
for his mercy endureth forever." That " overthrew Pharaoh and his host 
in the Red Sea ; for his mercy endureth forever" But why were those 
events a proof of the mercy of God ? Surely not because there was any 
mixture of mercy toward the sufferers, but because God wrought a 
merciful deliverance for his people by the infliction of just punishment 
upon their enemies. 

Here it may be said, that limited punishment is consistent with the 
mercy of God, because he will overrule it for the greater good of the 
sufferers. To this notion our reply is, that it destroys entirely the penal 
sanctions of God's law. It virtually says to men, If you sin, you shall 
indeed be punished ; but only in such a manner as shall, in the end, make 
you the happier for all your sufferings. Who does not see that this is 
holding out a reward for transgression, rather than a penalty? But 
further, cannot God make men as happy without suffering as with it ? 
To say he cannot, is to limit his power. To say he has the power but 
not the will, is to limit his goodness. And if it be said that God, for 
reasons known to himself, sees it best to permit suffering in his moral 
government, and to overrule it all for the general good, it is only neces- 
sary to add, that for all this reasoning proves to the contrary, God sees 
it best to punish the finally impenitent with " everlasting destruction" 

It is further urged, in vindication of the doctrine of Restorationism, 
that as endless punishment is abhorrent to the feelings of humanity, it 
must be inconsistent with the Divine benevolence. " How," say the 
advocates of this system, " could you bear to see a fellow, a neighbor, a 
child, endure such torment ? Would you not do the utmost in your 
power to rescue such a sufferer? Surely you would. Aod is not God 
better than man ? is he not more benevolent than the best of earthly 
parents ? Certainly he is. How then can we suppose that he will for- 
ever punish any of his creatures ?" 

It would not be proper to call this an argument ; it is a mere trick 



64:6 ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. [Book VII. 

played upon the unreflecting, the fallacy of which may be easily shown. 
It leaves wholly out of the account the dignity of God's character as 
Lawgiver and Governor of the world, and the ends of his moral gov- 
ernment, and attempts to settle a question of retributive justice by an 
appeal to human sympathies. On the ground taken by such reasoners 
we would be compelled to deny many of the facts recorded in Scripture. 
It will be admitted by all, that no benevolent father could drown his 
children, or burn them to death. But God is a benevolent father ; 
therefore he could not have destroyed the inhabitants of the old world 
by water, nor those of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire. But further : no 
benevolent father could cause his children to suffer poverty, and want, 
and bodily affliction. But many of the children of God do thus suffer ; 
therefore, God cannot be a benevolent father. Why, then, should any 
one argue against the doctrine of endless punishment from a principle 
which leads to such fearful consequences ? Indeed, if it were carried 
out to its legitimate results it would set aside all government, both 
human and Divine. 

(4.) Restorationism is both absurd in itself, and contrary to the doctrine 
of salvation by grace, through the merits of the atonement. — To suppose 
that men who despise all the means of salvation in this life, and die in 
sin, shall nevertheless be brought, by means of penal suffering, to a state 
of holiness and happiness in heaven, involves the absurdity, that the 
penalty of sin in the future world will be to sinners the greatest possible 
blessing. For, if future punishment be instrumental in raising them to 
the joys of endless life, it will accomplish for them what (Christ and all 
the means of grace failed to do on earth. It is obvious, moreover, 
according to this theory, that there is, in reality, no salvation for sinners. 
If they obtain eternal life, it is not by being saved, but by suffering the 
full penalty of the law ; not by the obtainment of a gracious pardon 
through the atonement of Christ, but by paying the debt. This, of 
course, turns into nonsense all that the Bible declares respecting the 
salvation of sinners by the grace and mercy of God. How could such 
persons truthfully unite in ascribing salvation to Him who " washed us 
from our sins in his own blood ?" Would they not rather feel them- 
selves indebted to hell-fire, and the curse of the law ? 

2. The theory of Annihilationism. — -The advocates of this theory 
maintain that the wicked, after the general resurrection, shall suffer the 
whole penalty of the law ; not, however, in a state of endless misery, 
but by the endurance of a penal process which shall terminate in their 
utter destruction or annihilation. They assume that the term death, as 
applied to man in the Scriptures, means annihilation, or the extinction 
of conscious existence ; that as death is the penalty of the law, that 
penalty must consist in annihilation ; and that as the annihilation of the 
finally impenitent will be irreversible, it will be to them an endless pun- 
ishment. Thus they attempt to reconcile their theory to the doctrine of 



Chap. 5.] ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 647 

the endless punishment of the wicked, while they deny a state of end- 
less suffering. But it is not our intention, in this place, to enter upon 
an extended examination of the peculiarities of annihilationism. On 
this question enough has been said in the first chapter of this book, to 
which the reader is referred. We only intend to point out, in a few 
remarks, the erroneousness of the theory in its relation to future pun- 
ishment. And, 

(1.) That the term death, as applied to man in the Scriptures, ever 
means annihilation, and that annihilation is the penalty of the Divine 
law, are mere assumptions for which there is not the shadow of proof, 
and which we may very confidently deny. — Indeed, to understand the 
term death in the sense of annihilation would turn many passages of 
Scripture into downright nonsense, as a few examples will show. Thus : 
" Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death (annihilation) of his 
saints." Psa. cxvi, 15. "We were reconciled to God by the death of 
his Son." Rom. v, 10. "Who shall deliver me from the body of this 
death f n Rom. vii, 24. " He that loveth not his brother, abideth in 
death." 1 John iii, 14. 

And equally unfounded is the assumption, that the penalty of the 
law consists in annihilation, as we have shown in another place;* or 
that annihilation will constitute the future punishment of the wicked. 
It is asserted, we know, that this doctrine is clearly taught in the Scrip- 
tures, by the employment of such terms as perish, consume, destroy, 
and destruction, in connection with the punishment of the wicked ; but 
this is only to support one baseless assumption by another equally des- 
titute of proof. "Where there is no vision," says Solomon, "the peo- 
ple perish" Prov. xxix, 18. Are they annihilated? "I am consumed 
(but not annihilated) by the blow of thine hand." Psa. xxxix, 10. "He 
sent frogs among them that destroyed them." Psa. lxxviii, 43. "The 
destruction of the poor is their poverty." Prov. x, 15. 

(2.) The theory is inconsistent with itself. — Its advocates teach, not 
only that annihilation is the penalty of the law, but that it is the most 
dreadful of all punishments, even worse than endless suffering ; and yet 
they maintain that the annihilation of the righteous between death and 
the resurrection is no punishment at all, but a real gain.\ Will the 
wicked suffer any more from annihilation between death and the resurrec- 
tion than the righteous? Certainly not. And if the annihilation of the 
righteous at death is not the penalty of the law, how can the annihila- 
tion of the wicked be? If in the former case there is no infliction of 
punishment, how can the punishment be so dreadful in the latter ? The 
system teaches, therefore, that annihilation is the penalty of the law and 
not the penalty ; that it is a most dreadful punishment, and no punish- 
ment at all ; and that the only difference between the righteous and the 

* See page 600. 

f See "Age of Gospel Light," p. 40; "Debt and Grace," p. 256. 



64:3 ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. [Book VII. 

wicked, as far as this matter is concerned, is, that the former shall he 
annihilated once, the latter twice. 

(3.) That annihilation will not be the future punishment of the wicked 
is evident from the absurdity of supposing that they shall be raised 
again into existence merely to be annihilated. — If annihilationism is 
true, all men lose their personal identity at death ; for it would be per- 
fect folly to talk about the continued existence of persons who are anni- 
hilated. If death is annihilation, a resurrection is impossible. There 
might be other moral beings created, but they could not be justly 
rewardable or punishable for the moral conduct of the annihilated gen- 
erations of men. And to suppose that God would create moral beings 
and then annihilate them, merely to show the penal consequences of 
guilt, with which they had no connection whatever, would be to impugn 
his wisdom, his goodness, and his justice. 

(4.) If the future punishment of the wicked is to consist in annihila- 
tion, then all sinners will be punished alike ; which is both unreasonable 
and un scriptural.* — But as there will be different degrees of future pun- 
ishment, and as there cannot be different degrees of annihilation, there- 
fore annihilation cannot be that punishment. It may be said that the 
different degrees of punishment spoken of in Scripture refer to that 
punitive process which will result in annihilation, and that some w T ill 
suffer therein longer and more intensely than others, according to the 
number and magnitude of their sins. This mode of avoiding the diffi- 
culty, however, only leads to others ; for, if -the penalty of sin lies in 
the sufferings which precede annihilation, then annihilation cannot be 
that penalty. Again, to those who are suffering these supposed tor- 
ments, annihilation would either be a curse or a blessing. If the former, 
a state of endless torment would be better for the sinner than a release 
from all suffering by annihilation ; and if the latter, annihilation cannot 
be the penalty of the law, unless it can be made to appear that a penalty 
and a blessing are the same thing. 

(5.) That the future punishment of the wicked will not consist in 
annihilation is manifest from the case of the fallen angels. — No one 
dare assert that they have been annihilated; and that they will not 
be annihilated is plain from their apprehensions of future punish- 
ment. " Art thou come to torment us before the time ?" said they 
to our Lord. Hence it is torment, and not annihilation; that they 
expect to suffer ; and the Scriptures expressly declare that wicked men 
shall partake with them in their final punishment. "Depart from 
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 
angels." Matt, xxv, 41. With these remarks respecting the inconsist- 
encies of annihilationism we will dismiss the subject, and proceed to 
consider, 

3. The doctrine of endless punishment. — That the future punishment 
* See Matt, v, 22; xi, 21-24; xxiii, 14; Luke xii, 4*7, 48. 



Chap. 5.] ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 649 

of the wicked will be endless may be established by the following argu- 
ments : 

(1.) It is expressly declared in Scripture to be everlasting, eternal, 
and to endure for ever and ever. Thus Daniel tells us that the wicked 
shall rise " to shame and everlasting contempt." Dan. xii, 2. Our Lord 
asserts that they " shall go away into everlasting punishment," Matt, 
xxv, 46 ; and St. Paul, that they " shall be punished with everlasting 
destruction." 2 Thess. i, 9. The means of their punishment is spoken 
of as " everlasting fire," Matt, xxv, 41 ; and "the fire that never shall 
he quenched." Mark ix, 43. And the destruction of the wicked is called 
"eternal damnation." Mark iii, 29. 

To this argument it is objected, that all terms and phrases of this 
nature are often employed to denote a limited period, and that there- 
fore they do not prove the endless punishment of the wicked. To this 
we reply, that though the terms everlasting, forever, and eternal, are 
sometimes employed to denote a limited period, yet they most obvi- 
ously convey the idea of endless duration. They always denote the 
longest period of w^hich the subjects united with them are capable. 
Thus a servant forever is a servant during life. The everlasting hills 
and the everlasting mountains, denote hills and mountains which con- 
tinue to exist while the earth endures. And, unless it can be proved 
that the endless existence of the wicked is impossible, these terms will 
prove their endless punishment. 

Eternity is not divided into'parts and periods ; and therefore, as these 
words refer to eternity, their meaning must run parallel with the state 
to which they refer. "The things that are seen," says the apostle, "are 
temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal." That is, the 
things which are seen endure for a time, but the things which are 
not seen endure forever. But the future state of the. wicked is among 
the things unseen, as their retribution lies in the eternal world. To 
say that punishment in eternity will endure but for a time, involves a 
contradiction. "With as much consistency might it be said, that punish- 
ment in time may be eternal. 

(2.) The duration of the punishment of the wicked is expressed by 
the same terms as that of the future happiness of the righteous. — " And 
these (the wicked) shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the 
righteous into life eternal." Matt, xxv, 46. Here it is only necessary to 
remark, that the Greek word aicbvtog, which is rendered everlasting in 
one case and eternal in the other, means unlimited duration ; and that 
it is applied in both cases in exactly the same manner, without the least 
hint of any diversity of meaning. We have, therefore, no right to con- 
clude that the punishment of the wicked will be of shorter duration 
than the happiness of the righteous. If the latter be endless, so will the 
former. If one is " everlasting life," the other is " everlasting pimish- 
eternal life," the other is " eternal damnation." If 



650 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. [Book VII. 



it is said of the righteous in the future world that " they shall reign 
for ever and ever" it is also said of those who worship the beast and 
his image that " the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and 
ever." 

(3.) The future punishment of the wicked is sometimes spoken of in 
such terms and under such circumstances as necessarily imply its end- 
less duration. — In the eighteenth chapter of Matthew we have the para- 
ble of the servant who owed ten thousand talents and had nothing to 
pay. This servant was committed to prison, and was there to be con- 
fined till he should pay the debt. Is it not evident that he could never 
make the required payment ? And if so, his case is to be regarded as 
hopeless. 

In Mark ix, 45, our Lord informs us, that " to be cast into hell " is 
to be cast " into the fire that never shall be quenched ;" or as it is 
expressed in Matthew iii, 12, " unquenchable fire." But this represent- 
ation of the punishment of the wicked is incompatible with the notion 
that it will ever be terminated; for if the fire shall never be quenched, 
their punishment shall never end. 

In Mark xiv, 21, our Saviour says, "Woe to that man by whom the 
Son of man is betrayed ! good were it for that man if he had never been 
born." But if Judas should be miserable through any limited duration, 
however long, and should afterward be admitted to endless happiness, 
the event would be a direct contradiction of this passage ; for he should 
still have an eternity of blessedness before him. Nor can his punish- 
ment consist in annihilation ; for the text assures us that non-existence 
would be better than his future condition. 

Our Lord says, Mark iii, 29, " He that blasphemeth against the Holy 
Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." 
The parallel passage in Luke says, " it shall not be forgiven." Now it 
must be evident that these two evangelists considered not to be forgiven 
at all, and to be eternally punished, as implying each other ; and an 
eternal punishment for a sin that shall not be forgiven will be necessa- 
rily endless. 

To these passages might be added many others, declaring the same 
doctrine in the same unambiguous manner ; but we deem it unnecessary 
to pursue the subject any further. If what has been said will not estab- 
lish the doctrine of endless punishment, it is to be feared that additional 
arguments would be unavailing. 



TEXTS MORE OR LESS ILLUSTRATED. 



Genesis. 

Ch. Ver. Page 

1 2 231 

1 6 248 

1 26 182 

3 7-9 416 

3 15 223 

3 22 182 

4 3, 4 345 

5 3 304 

6 5 299 
6 5,12,13 300 
6 9 450 
8 20, 21 345 

8 21 348 

9 4 345 
9 6 518 

15 9, 10 346 

17 1 448 

17 6 214 

17 10, 11 566 

18 25 338 
18 33 190 
22 15, 16 191 
22 18 223, 467 
28 12 255 
31*11,12 191 
32 2 254 
32 26 492 

48 15, 16 191 

49 33 605 

50 20 273 



Exodus. 

3 6 191 

3 14 191 

4 2 434, 442 

5 3 349 
10 21, 23 84 
12 23 252 
12 26 496 
12 29, 30 84 
14 21-23 84 
16 23-30 502 
18 21, 22 534 
20 1-17 468 
20 8-11 505 
20 12 270 
20 24 200 
22 20 209 



Page 

193 
350 
506 
172 



Ch. Ver. 
23 20 

30 12 

31 14 
34 6 

Leviticus. 

5 15, 16 350 

14 6 574 

15 31 351 
19 2 169 
19 15 534 

19 35, 36 521 

20 10 527 
26 12 442 



Numbers. 

6 24-27 

8 17, 18 
11 9 
21 14 
23 19 
27 21 



183 
65 

575 
59 

163 
64 



Deuteronomy. 

4 33 191 

5 6-21 468 

6 4 140, 182 
6 7 496 

10 15 390 

11 18, 19 64 
14 1 42 
18 15 223 
18 18 64 
25 4 75 

29 10-12 564 

30 6 426 
30 15, 16 491 

32 29 478 

33 25 459 
33 28 575 



Joshua. 



3 5 

3 15 

4 6 
4 18 

10 13 

7 25 



66 
66 

496 
66 
59 

293 



10 6, 7, 9 463 



1 Samuel. 


Cb. 


Ver. 


Page 






26 


6 


152 


Ch. Ver. 

20 6 


Page 

496 


26 


7-10 


147 


28 15 


463 


26 


13 


231 


31 4 


463 


26 


14 


148 






28 


24-27 


159 


2 Samuel. 


33 


4 


231 






34 


12 


166 


6 20 


496 


36 


5 


159 


14 20 


575 


38 


4 


246 


18 33 


359 


38 


7 


442 


20 9 


16 


42 


7, 8 


349 


23 3 


534 








24 12-15 


270 




Psalms 


. 


1 Kings 




5 


4 


272 


8 27 


149 


7 
8 


11 

5 


516 
279 


8 39 


200 


9 5 


199 


2 Kings. 


16 
19 


11 
1 


635 

147 


3 11 


575 


19 


7 


430 


5 27 


293 


22 


4 


484 


20 18 


214 


22 


22 


566 


25 5-7 


117 


23 


1, 6 


443 






27 4 


492 


1 Chronicles. 


30 


11 


157 


16 34 


172 


31 


5 


605 


29 29 


59 


33 


4 


162 






33 


5 


172 


2 Chronicles. 


33 


6 


331 






33 


9 


147 


32 4 


579 


33 


11 


236 






34 7 


255 


Job. 




36 


6 203 


,268 


1 1 


450 


37 


24 


444 


1 4, 5 


348 


38 


4,7 


251 


1 6 


442 


39 


10 


647 


10 8, 11, 12 269 


40 


12 


474 


11 7 


178 


41 


9 


464 


11 7-9 


140 


49 


11 


600 


11 12 


304 


49 


12, 14 


600 


12 13 


159 


50 


3, 4 


623 


13 15 


484 


51 


3 


474 


14 4 


304 


51 


5 


304 


14 5 


270 


51 


10 


449 


14 10 


605 


51 


10, 11 


431 


15 14 


304 


55 


23 


270 


17 9 


459 


57 


3 


304 


17 11 


601 


66 


18 


493 


23 13 m 


236 


68 


17 


254 


24 7 


254 


72 


18,19 


178 



Ch. Ver. Page 

73 3-5 638 

75 6, 7 271 

76 10 272 
78 43 647 

81 11,12 272 

82 6 442 

83 18 196 

84 2 492 
84 11 274, 443 
86 5 172 
86 10 140 
89 30-35 457 

89 34 163 

90 2 145, 198 
90 3 270 

90 10 270 

91 10, 11 255 
99 9 169 

102 25-27 145, 

157 

103 5, 6 638 

103 21 253 

104 4 252 
104 24 159, 249 

104 30 231 

105 4 498 
112 7 484 

116 15 647 

117 2 163 
121 5-8 443 
127 1 443 

138 6 268 

139 1, 2, 11, 

12 152 

139 7-10 149 

139 15, 16 269 

145 3 178 

145 9 172 

145 15, 16 264 

147 5 152 

Proverbs. 

1 23 589 

1 24-26 385 

1 28 341 

3 5 489 

8 13 516 

10 15 647 

12 22 523 

15 3 264 



652 



TEXTS MOKE OR LESS ILLUSTRATED. 



Ch. Ver. 

19 17 
19 18 
22 6 
22 15 

29 15 

30 4 



Page 

526 
64V 
530 
304 
304 
214 



ECCLESIASTES. 



600 
279 
601 
536 
623 



3 19, 20 

7 29 
9 5 

10 20 

12 14 

Isaiah. 

1 3 478 

1 18 448 

6 3 169, 183 

8 13 168 

9 6 200 
9 7 567 

33 22 204 

40 3 195, 197 

40 12 147 

40 13, 14 236 

40 17 147 

43 2 274 

43 2,3 444 

43 10 200 

44 3 589 

44 6 200 

45 22. 140 

46 9, 10 201 
46 10 236 

54 5 182 

55 6 498 
55 7 474, 601 
58 13, 14 516 
60 8 516 

Jeremiah. 
17 5 212,304 



17 10 
23 5,6 
23 24 
31 3 

31 31, 32 
52 10, 11 



200 
196 
149 
458 
194 
117 



Lamentations. 



3 41 
5 7 



498 
360 



EZEKIEL. 



27 



14 6 

18 24 
18 26 
18 32 
33 7-9 
33 11 
36 25 448, 589 
36 25, 26 426, 
560 



474 
460 
158 
386 
17 
386 



Daniel, 

Ch. Ver. 

4 33 

4 35 

6 10 
12 2 
12 2 



Page 

575 
159 
496 
612 
640, 649 



HOSEA. 

12 3-5 191 



Joel. 
2 28, 29 
2 32 



589 
197 



Jonah. 
3 4, 5 481 
3 10 237 

Micah. 

5 2 213 

6 8 517 

Habakkuk. 
3 6 147 

Zechariah. 
12 10 493 

Malachi. 
1 6 182 
3 1 194 
3 6 157 



Matthew. 



1 21 



23 

22 
1,2 

2 



448 
198 
359 
476 

472 



5,6 577,584 

11 558, 561 

16 577 
16, 17 215, 

229 

17 193, 212 

12 583 
17 475 

145, 446 
507 



17 

22 

5 44 

5 48 

6 5 
6 6 
6 10 
6 14, 15 



25-32 
30 
7 
8 

12 
21 



6 
6 
7 
7 
1 
7 

8 10 
8 11 



516 
524 
448 
493 
495 
253 
494, 
517 
264 
481 

479, 492 

499 

517 

16 

481, 485 
635 



Ch. Ver. Page 

9 2 203 
9 2-8 67 
9 6 204 
10 1-7 68 
10 20 79, 228 
10 28 279,606 
10 29, 30 268 
10 29-31 
10 30 
10 37 
12 21 
12 32 

12 36, 37 

13 3 
13 42 
13 43 

13 50 

14 15-21 
14 23 



14 33 

15 4-6 

15 28 

16 18 
16 21 

16 24 

17 3 

17 5 

18 3 

18 18-20 
18 20 

18 37 

19 4, 5 
19 5 

19 16-22 
19 17 
19 17-19 

19 4-6 

20 1-16 

21 29 

22 32 
22 36-40 
22 37, 38 
22 37-39 



264 
153 
531 
485 
233 
627 
580 
642 
620 
642 
67 
495 
205 
531 
481 
566 
358 
474, 483 
606 



193 

428 



22 39 

22 42 

23 37 

24 14 
24 29 

24 31 

25 31 



200 
320 
282 
563 
517 
239 
469 
527 
167 
472 
607 
471 
505 
147, 
276 
515 
223 
385 
382 
148 
256, 624 
253 



25 31, 32 623 
25 32 148, 204 
25 34 628 

25 41 642, 648 

25 46 148, 649 

26 26, 27 554 
26 27, 28 591 
26 53 



27 3 
27 42 

27 50 

28 19 
28 20 



254 
472 
199 
605 
232, 558 
200 



Mark. 



Ch. Ver. 


Page 


1 2 


]94 


1 4, 5 564, 581 


1 15 384,475 


1 24 


483 


2 27 


513 


3 5 


516 


3 29 649 


,650 


6 12 


476 


7 3, 4 


575 


7 21-23 


305 


8 38 


484 


9 43 


649 


9 44 


642 


9 45 


650 


10 14 


570 


10 45 


359 


11 24 


494 


11 25 


494 


14 21 


650 


16 15, 16 


558 


16 16 239, 


384, 


458 


,562 


Luke. 




1 6 


450 


1 68-75 


567 


2 14 


253 


3 17 


642 


4 8 


208 


6 12 


495 


6 37 


494 


7 3 


472 


7 11-15 


67 


10 7 


75 


11 11 


359 


11 13 232 


,431 


12 6 


153 


12 11, 12 


79 


12 48 


526 


13 3 239,476 


13 29 


631 


15 10 


253 


16 9 


636 


16 22 


255 


16 23 


643 


17 5 


481 


18 13 


474 


18 13, 14 


494 


20 36 


251 


21 25, 26 


624 


22 31 259 


634 


22 70 


217 


23 43 


608 


23 46 


605 


24 39 251 


613 


24 46 


358 


24 47 


382 


24 51, 52 


206 



John. 
1 3 216 
442 



Ch. Ver. 

1 14 ' 
1 15 
1 28 
1 47 

1 49 

2 1 
2 1-10 

2 24, 25 

3 2 
3 3, 7 



1 12 



Page 
216 

187 
578 
450 
199 
582 
67 
201 
89 
426, 
427 
3 5 558 
3 5,6,8 230, 
426 
3 13 177, 200 
3 17 216 
3 18 419 
3 19 ' 627 
3 23 579 

3 36 384,419 

4 9, 10, 14 216 
4 24 143 

4 50 480 

5 4, 18 230 
5 17, 18 217 
5 18, 2Q 216 
5 19 201 
5 20 199 
5 21 204 
5 22, 23 624 
5 24 458 
5 28 148 
5 28, 29 204, 

612, 616, 

640 

5 37 215 

5 40 220, 385 

6 39 616 
6 62 189 
6 63 231 
6 64 201 
8 7 187 
8 26 580 
8 44 256, 434 

8 51 291, 636 

9 7 480 
9 35, 36 480 
9 35-38 205 

10 18 212 

10 27, 28 458 

10 28 455 

10 31-33 217 

10 37, 38 482 

10 40 578 

11 24 614 
11 25 204 

11 26 636 

12 24 358 

12 42, 43 484 

13 1 459 
13 2 259 
13 17 10 
13 18 464 
13 27 464 



TEXTS MOKE OR LESS ILLUSTRATED. 



653 



Ch. Vei. 


Page 


Ch. Ver. Page 


Ch. Ver. 


Page 


Ch. Ver. Page 


PHILIPPIANS. 


14 2. 3 24S 


,630 


16 31 419 


8 35-39 


455 


5 10 204, 365 


Ch. Ver. Paee 


14 6 


493 


17 24-28 264 


8 38, 39 


459 


5 17 426 


1 21 610 


14 16, 26 


229 


17 27, 28 149 


9 30 


417 


5 18 364 


2 7, 8 177 


U 26 


78 


17 29 278 


10 4 


417 


5 19 365 


2 12, 13 271 


15 1. 2, 6 


460 


17 30 384,477 


10 10 


483 


5 21 360 


3 15 450 


15 18 


187 


17 31 627 


10 13 


197 


7 1 448,451 


3 20 619 


15 19 


393 


19 2 229 


10 14, 17 


482 


8 7 526 


3 21 612 


15 22 


473 


20 21 475 


11 7 


391 


8 12 526 


4 6 494,498 


15 26 


228 


23 5 536 


11 17,18,2 


1, 


9 7 526 




16 8 


473 


23 6 616 


22 


461 


10 4 111, 430 


COLOSSIANS. 


16 13 


78 


24 15 640 


12 1 


448 


11 3 282 


1 14. 15 227 


16 15 


201 


26 20 474 


12 17, 19 


517 


12 7-9 206 


1 16, 17 203 


17 3 


458 


26 27 483 


13 1, 2 


535 


13 14 185, 232 


1 20 364 


17 5 


189 


28 25, 26 184 


13 3, 4 


534 




1 22, 23 455 


17 9 


379 




14 1 


481 




1 27 427 


17 11 


459 


Romans. 


14 10 


623 


Galatlans. 


2 10 203 


17 17 


449 


1 7 207 


14 12 


204 


1 12 81 


2 10, 12 580 


17 20 


4S2 


1 16 482 






2 21 417 


2 17 353 


18 36 


111 


1 17 481 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


3 8 568 


3 10 278, 426 


20 4,8 
20 5 
20 28 

20 30, 31 


1-7 
581 
188 
482 


1 25 208 

2 4 478 
2 5 338 

2 6 166 


1 2 
1 13 

1 27-29 

2 6 

2 9. 10 
2 10 
2 12 

4 11. 13 

5 21 

6 9 
6 19 

6 19, 20 


206 
560 
113 
450 

81 
230 
228 

70 
355 
428 
230 
363, 
617 


3 8, 9 566 

3 13 177, 363 

3 26 442 

4 4 216 


3 20 531 

3 21 529 

4 1 532 
4 2 498 


Acts. 
1 5 


561 


2 14, 15 263 
2 14, 15 626 
2 16 624 


4 4-6 436 
4 5 434 
4 6 228 


4 16 59 
1 Thess. 


1 24 


205 


2 29 426, 569 


4 19 427 


4 6 521 


1 25 


464 


3 24 363 


5 14 523 


4 16 624 


2 19. 20 


624 


3 24-26 366 


5 22, 23 439 


4 17 614 


2 23 


235 


3 25 362 


5 25 232 


5 23 449,451 


2 33 


230 


3 28 361. 423 


6 10 526 




2 34 


603 


3 31 507 




2 Thess. 


2 37 


480 


4 3 415, 416 






1 3 481 
1 7 252 


2 38 462 


,475 


4 11 566 


8 6 

8 11 

9 27 
10 1-5 
10 2 
10 4 

10 4,11 
10 9 
10 12 

10 16 

11 23-25 

11 26 

12 6-11 
12 13 
14 15 

14 37 

15 16-1S 
15 22 292 
15 22,23.52 
15 51, 53 
15 54, 55 


140 
381 
459 
464 
575 
568 
353 
195 
465 
555 
591 


Ephesians. 


2 38,41 


559 


4 11. 12 567 


1 4-6 397 


1 9 649 


2 43 


580 


4 20 480 


1 5 235 


2 8 498 


5 3 


259 


4 20-22 417 


1 7 363 


2 13 393, 482 


5 3. 4 


230 


5 5 462 


1 9 234 


2 13, 14 396 


5 29 
5 31 


536 
475 


5 6-8 359 

5 10 364, 647 


1 11 158 
1 13 485 


1 TnroTHY. 


6 15 


620 


5 12 278. 291 


1 18 462 


1 17 159 


7 38 


566 


5 15, 18 380 


1 21 203 


1 IS, 19 461 


7 59 
7 59, 60 


605 
206 


6 1, 2 422 

6 2 582 


2 1 291 
2 7 177 


1 19, 20 465 

2 1-3 536 


8 12 


559 


6 3, 4 580 


055 
230 

582 
430 
76 
603 
, 380 
616 
614 
617 


2 10 426 


2 3, 4 386 


8 22 


601 


6 4 569 


2 12 434 


2 5 493, 563 


8 29 


229 


6 14 427 


2 16 364, 365 


2 8 493 


8 36 


559 


6 22 446 


2 18 493 


3 6 257 


S 37 

8 38. 39 

9 18 

10 34. 35 


483 

577 
5S7 
392 


7 7 507 
7 9 478 
7 12 169, 338 
7 24 647 


2 19 434 

3 2-5 77 
3 3-5 81 
3 11 236 


4 10 4S5 

5 8 528 

2 Tqiothy. 


10 36 

10 42 624 


197 

. 641 


8 3 219 
8 7 518 


3 14-19 449 

4 10 631 


3 15 430 

4 1 625. 641 


10 44 
10 46-48 


590 
562 


S 9 228, 561 
8 10 515 


2 Corinthians. 


4 24 279, 426 
4 25 523 


4 14 461 


10 47, 48 


587 


8 11 231 


1 1 


235 


4 32 517 


Titus. 


11 15 


590 


8 13, 14 232 


2 11 


259 


5 2 355 


19 16 


11 18 


472 


8 14 230.444 


3 17 143 


,230 


5 22,23.25, 


2 11, 12 16 


11 33 


212 


8 15-16 435 


4 6 


462 


33 52S 


2 13 199 


14 16 


272 


8 17 424,445 


4 7 


113 


6 1 531 


3 7 42S 


14 17 


175 


8 26 493 


4 14 


616 


6 2 470 




15 18 152 


. 235 


8 28 235, 443 


5 1 


636 


6 5 531 


Philemon. 


16 24-34 


588 


8 29 239 


5 6-8 


609 


6 8 532 


10 430 



654 



TEXTS MOEE OR LESS ILLUSTRATED. 



Hebrews. 



Ch. 


Ver. 


1 


1 


1 


2 


1 


3 


1 


5 


1 


6 


1 


7 


1 


8 


2 


1 


2 


3,4 


2 


9 


3 


12 


3 


14 


'4 


1 


4 15 


4 


16 


5 


7 


5 


9 


6 


1 


6 4-6 


6 


18 


8 


8-13 


8 


10 


9 


14 


9 


22 


9 


27 



Page 

231 
202,216 
203, 262 
213 
201 
14?, 251 
199, 219 
465 
482 
359 
465 
255, 482 
465 
224 
479 
498 
636 
446 
461 
163 
194 
434 
230 
362 
623 
641 



Ch. Ver. Page 
9 28 360 

10 1 353 
10 22 561, 589 
10 26-29 462 



10 29 
10 35 

10 38 

11 1 
11 3 
11 4 
11 
11 
12 



10 



6 

9 

6 

12 21 
12 22-24 

12 24 

13 16 

13 20,21 



381 
465 
465 
481 
202, 242 
345, 341 
415 



566 
274 
506 
443 
589 
526 
449 



James. 
13 272, 426 



284 
157 
426 
10 
483 
423 
517 



1 Peter. 



1 11 
1 11 



2 24 

3 9 
3 12 
3 18 
5 8 
5 10 



Page 

239, 394 
424 
455 
74, 231 
82 
253 
168 
363 
426 
430 
462 
534 
535 
531 
360 
386 
499 
231 
259 
636 



19 



2 Peter. 
1 5-7, 10 456 
1 11 636 
1 16, 17 482 
1 21 74, 231 



Ver. 
1 

4 

4 

4-7 

10 

17 

1 



8,17 



Page 
381 




JUDE. 




148 


Ch. 


Ver. 


Page 


256, 625 




1 


642 


641 




13 


641 


229, 627 








465 








542 


Revelation. 




1 


5,6 


207 




1 


8 


201 


163 


1 


10 


510 


r 200 


1 


15 


280 


166, 367 


1 


20 


553 


448 


2 


7 


632 


361 


2 


23 


201 


516 


3 


14 


609 


442, 635 


5 


9 


364 


427 


5 


11 


254 


647 


7 


15 


635 


516 


7 


16 


633 


526 


7 


17 


635 


622 


19 


10 


208 


169 


20 


12 


623 


184 


20 


12 


613 


360 


21 


3 


565 




21 


4 


619 


DHK. 


21 


8 


523 


542 


21 


8 


642 



■+++- 



INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 



PAGE 

Abel's sacrifice » 347 

Ability, natural and moral 374 

Abraham's sacrifice 346 

offering up of Isaac 346 

Adam, legal relation of, to his posterity 292 
Adam's sin imputed to his posterity . . . 293 
Administration of God toward man, of 

a mixed nature 100 

Admission into the Church, power of, 

with ministers 548 

Adoption, benefits of 441 

«j defined 433 

, evidences of 435 

, evidences of, different theories re- 
specting 436 

, nature of 433 

Adultery, criminality of 527 

Affection, mutual, demanded by the 

conjugal relation 528 

Affusion the proper mode of Christian 

baptism 583 

Age, Augustan, one of great learning.. 70 
Agency, man's moral 308 



PAGE 

Agency, man's moral, proofs of 316 

, man's moral, true doctrine of . . . 314 

, moral, defined. 308 

Alexander, an example of total apostasy 465 

All-sufficiency of God 177 

Ancient writers testify to the existence 

and antiquity of Moses 52 

Angel, import of the term 250 

"Angel of the Lord," a designation of 

Christ 199 

Angels, creation of 250 

, holy, employment of . . . T 254 

, holy, great number of 254 

, holy, moral condition of 252 

, holy, natural attributes of 254 

, unholy, employment of 258 

, unholy, fall of 256 

, unholy, final destiny of 259 

, unholy, moral condition of 257 

, unholy, various titles of 258 

, unholy, why not redeemed 260 

Animals, distinction of, into clean and 

unclean . » 344 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 



655 



PAGE 

Annihilation not the penalty of the law 647 
not the future punishment of the 

wicked 647 

Annihilationism, theory of 598 

inconsistent with itself 647 

Antiquity of the Holy Scriptures 53 

Apollinarians, doctrine of 221 

Apostasy, Calvinistic theory respecting 456 

, general agreement respecting. . . 455 

, total, arguments in support of. . . 460 

, total, examples of 463 

, total, possibility of 455 

, total, Calvinistic arguments 

against, considered 456 

Apostles, office of 540 

Arguments for the existence of God. . . 130 

Arianism 222 

Aristocratical government, what 533 

Arminianism 376 

Atmosphere, creation of 248 

Atonement 343, 349, 356 

, Arminian view of 376 

, Calvinistic theory of 371 

, doctrine of 101 

, extent of 377 

, sacrificial, for bodily disorders . . 351 

, supposed injustice of 369 

, Universalist notion of 374 

Attributes of God 139 

, Divine, ascribed to Christ 199 

Authority, Church, ends of 549 

, Divine, of the sacred Scriptures 71 

98, 109 

Baptism a seal 561 

a sign. 560 

by affusion, proofs for 583 

by immersion, arguments for, re- 
futed 573 

, emblematical import of 588 

, infant, arguments in support of. . 565 

, infant, objections to, obviated. . . 562 

initiatory 560 

in the room of circumcision 568 

, John's, circumstances of 583 

, mode of 573 

, nature of 557 

not regeneration 431 

of Cornelius 587 

of the eunuch 586 

of Saul of Tarsus 587 

of the jailer 588 

of the three thousand 584 

, sacramental import of 560 

, subjects of 561 

, universal obligation of 557 

Baxter's theory of the extent of the 

atonement 372 

Believers proper subjects of baptism . . 562 

Benedictions, origin and nature of. 207 

Benefits of the atonement, general view 

of 403 

Benevolence required by the law of love 523 
Bible, supposed demoralizing influence of 118 



PAGE 

Bishop, office of 541 

Blessedness of the saints in heaven 

endless 636 

Blood, why prohibited 350 

Body, human, a proof of the Divine ex- 
istence 136 

Cain and Abel, sacrifice of 345 

Calvin denied the freedom of the will. . 310 

, theory of, respecting the Lord's 

Supper 593 

Calvinism, brief view of 371 

Canon, sacred, how determined 62 

, sacred, integrity of 58 

, sacred, term defined 62 

Catalogues, early, of Christian Scrip- 
tures 56 

Cause, as defined by Edwards 323 

Causes, classification of 131 

Cautions prove the possibility of apos- 
tasy 1 465 

Change of the Sabbath from the seventh 

to the first day of the week* 508 

Character of God 337 

Children, duties of, to parents 530 

of believers proper subjects of 

baptism 562 

Christ a propitiation 356, 361 

a reconciler 364 

a redeemer 363 

came down from heaven 188 

, creation ascribed to 201 

, death of, necessary to man's sal- 
vation 357 

, death of, propitiatory 356 

, death of, vicarious 358 

died for all men 378 

died for those who may perish ... 380 

, Divine attributes ascribed to. ... 199 

, Divine titles ascribed to 195 

, Divine works ascribed to 201 

, Divine worship paid to 205 

, Divinity of 187 

, errors respecting the Divine na- 
ture of 222 

, errors respecting the human 

nature of 221 

, eternity ascribed to 200 

existed before the world 189 

, existence and antiquity of 52 

is called God 197 

is called Jehovah 196 

is called King of Israel 199 

is called Lord 196 

, miracles of 85 

, omnipresence ascribed to 201 

, omniscience ascribed to 200 

our final Judge 204, 624 

, person of 221 

, pre-existence of 187 

, preservation ascribed to 203 

, raising the dead ascribed to ... . 204 

, real existence of 52 

, resurrection of 86 



656 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 



PAGE 

Christ, Semiarian doctrine respecting. . 222 

, sinlessness of. 224 

, Sonship of 210 

— — subject to innocent infirmities ... 224 

the Jehovah of the Old Testament 190 

■ , the two natures of, constitute one 

person 224 

— — was before Abraham 188 

was truly man 223 

worshiped by heavenly beings . . 20*7 

■ worshiped by his disciples 205 

— — , worship of, a proof of his Divinity 208 
Christianity, ameliorating influence of. 113 

, institutions of 538 

, instruments employed in the prop- 
agation of 112 

, marvelous diffusion of, in the first 

three centuries 109 

, morals of 461 

- — - not suited to the carnal mind 112 

strongly opposed in the beginning 111 

Christians, relation of, to one another. . 539 

Church, constitution of. 543 

, Christian, a continuation of the 

Abrahamic covenant 56*7 

, Christian, officers of the 540 

, Christian, punitive discipline of 

the 539 

, Christian, what 538 

Circumcision a sign and seal of the 

Abrahamic covenant 566 

Clarke, Samuel, theory of, respecting 

Christ 222 

Compensation, adequate, meaning of 

the phrase 368 

Condition, moral, in which men are born 

into the world 296 

Confession an element of true repent- 
ance 474 

Conflagration, general. 629 

Conformity to truth required by justice 523 
Connection between Divine justice and 

the penalty of the law 338 

Conscience, liberty of. 522 

Consciousness a proof of man's moral 

agency 316 

Consent, common, a proof of the Divine 

existence 131 

of the will essential to saving 

faith 483 

Consideration a means of repentance . . 471 

Consubstantiation, doctrine of 593 

Contents, table of 5 

Contrition essential to true repentance 473 

Conviction precedes repentance 473 

Correction, Divine, a privilege of God's 

people 444 

Covenant, Abrahamic, the covenant of 

grace 565 

Creation ascribed to Christ 201 

ascribed to the Holy Ghost 231 

a proof of the Divine goodness . . 172 

, date of 245 

, extent of 248 



PAGE 

Creation in general 242 

in particular 249 

of angels 250 

of man, history of 277 

of the world not discoverable by 

reason 25 

Credibility of the sacred writers 68 

Darkness, plague of 84 

Days of the creation literal days 247 

Dead, resurrection of the, ascribed to 

the Holy Ghost 231 

Death, nature of that, which was made 

the penalty of the law 291 

not annihilation 598 

of Christ necessary to man'-s sal- 
vation 357 

of Christ propitiatory ...... 356 

of Christ, reality of the 86 

of Christ rendered the salvation 

of all men possible 378 

of Christ vicarious 359 

Decalogue binding on all Christians. . . 501 

imposed no new duties 505 

Decrees of God 234 

, existence of the 234 

, nature and properties of the. . . . 235 

Deity and personality of the Holy Ghost 227 

Depravity, human, degree of 298 

, human, nature of 297 

, human, proofs of 299 

, human, objections to, obviated. . 306 

Design a proof of the Divine existence 134 

, examples of 136 

Destructionism, how defended 599 

refuted 604 

, theory of 598 

Destruction of the first-born 84 

Devil, the real agent in man's original 

temptation 285 

Diffusion of Christianity an evidence 

of its Divine authority Ill 

in the first three centuries ...... 109 

Dispensation, the remedial 336 

Divinity of Christ 187 

Doctor S. Clarke's theory respecting 

Christ 222 

Doctrine of atonement 101 

-i of Divine influence 104 

of the Trinity, importance of ... . 180 

Doctrines of Scripture, excellency of. .. 98 

Dueling, criminality of 519 

Duties of children to parents- 530 

— — of masters 532 

of parents to their children 528 

of rulers 534 

of servants 531 

of the subjects of government . . . 535 

to our neighbor 527 

Education of children, duty of 599 

Effects of Christ's death 380 

of the fall 290 

Elders, office of 541 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 



657 



PAGE 

Election, Calvinistic view of 394 

defined 389 

of bodies of men to eminent privi- 
leges 390 

of persons to eternal life 393 

of persons to perform special serv- 
ices 390 

Elevation, inspiration of 80 

Enemies of Christianity, testimonies of 

the ; . . . . 57 

Enjoyments, heavenly, nature of 632 

, heavenly, will be endless 636 

Episcopacy may be a matter of expe- 
diency 542 

Equivalent, a full meaning of the 

phrase 368 

Errors respecting Christ : s Divine nature 222 

respecting Christ's human nature. 221 

Eternity ascribed to Christ 200 

of God. proofs of the 145 

of God not inconsistent with suc- 
cessive time 145 

of matter refuted 243 

of the world in its organized state 

refuted 244 

Evangelists, office of 541 

Evidence, collateral 50, 109 

, different kinds of 40 

, external 40 

, internal 48, 98 

, internal, nature of 48 

. internal, rank of 48 

Evidences necessary to authenticate a 

revelation 40 

Existence of God argued from common 
consent 131 

of God argued from marks of 

design 134 

of things a proof of the Divine 

existence 133 

Expulsion from the Church, power of, 

with ministers 548 

Extent of the Atonement 371, 377 

, Calvinistic theory of the 371 

. Universalist theory of 374 

Eye. human, a proof of the Divine ex- 
istence 136 

Failure to obtain salvation man's own 

fault 385 

Faith defined 417 

implies previous knowledge 480 

imputed for righteousness 415 

is based on evidence 480 

. justifying, what 481 

may exist in different degrees . . . 481 

, nature of, in general 479 

operates according to the fact be- 
lieved 481 

, saving, properties of 481 

the only condition of justification. 419 

Faithfulness of God, what 165 

Fall of man 281 

.effects of 290 



PAGE 

Fall, history of to be taken literally . ...282 

Fatalism, materialistic 309 

, stoical 309 

Fathers, Christian, testimony ot; to the 

inspiration of the Scriptures 73 

Fear of God, implied in love to him. . . 489 

, nature of the 489 

Fellowship with the Church, the dutv 

of all '.538 

Fidelity, a duty demanded by the con- 
jugal relation 527 

First-born, destruction of 84 

Foreknowledge of God 153 

consistent with man's moral 

agency - 331 

doe3 not imply necessity 332 

not dependent upon his decrees. . 135 

, objects of 153 

. theories respecting 154 

Forgiveness of sins ascribed to Christ. 203 

Fraud what 520 

Functions, animal, prove design 137 

Gambling, injustice of 521 

Genuineness of a book, what 51 

of the Scriptures, how established 51 

Geologists, notions of, respecting the 

date of creation 245 

GilgaL the twelve stones of 66 

Gnostics, doctrines of, respecting Christ 223 
God, a knowledge of, fundamental to 

religion 180 

, arguments for the existence of . . 130 

, a title given to Christ 197 

, attributes of 139 

1 benevolence of, manifested in 

our creation 174 

, character of. 337 

, decrees of 234 

defined 125 

, derivation of the term 125 

, doctrines respecting 124 

, existence of 124 

, existence of, not discoverable by 

reason 23 

, general Providence of 268 

, idea of, derived alone from reve- 
lation 130 

. idea of, not acquired by rational 

induction 126 

, idea of, not innate 126 

, immutability of 156 

is all-sufficient 177 

is perfect 177 

is unsearchable 173 

, prescience of 153 

, secret and revealed will of 241 

, special Providence of 269 

, unity of 140 

God's moral government, principles of. 337 

Goodness of God 170 

Government. Church, nature of 539 

, Church, necessity of 539 

, Church, to whom committed. . . . 54<; 



42 



658 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 



PAGE 

Government, civil, different kinds of . . 533 

, civil, of Divine authority 533 

, Divine, included in the idea of 

Providence ." 266 

— — of children a parental duty 528 

Governors, duties of 534 

Gospel, a means of regeneration 430 

, Christians shall be judged by the 626 

- — ■ to be preached to all men 382 

Heathen shall be judged by the law of 

nature 626 

Heaven, a place 630 

, the glory of 632 

Heavens, creation of 24*7 

, what they include 248 

Hebrew ceased to be a living language 

soon after the captivity 54 

History, evangelical, impressed with 

marks of credibility 70 

of the world a proof of man's 

moral agency 31*7 

Holiness of God 167 

Holy Ghost, Anus's opinion respecting 228 

, Deity of 230 

, designated by Divine titles 230 

, Divine works ascribed to 231 

, personality of 228 

, possesses Divine attributes 230 

, procession of 228 

the object of supreme worship. . . 233 

the source of inspiration 231 

— — , works of 231 

Hymeneus an example of total apostasy 465 

Image of God in which man was cre- 
ated 277 

Immersion, arguments for, examined. .573 

Immortality of the soul 597 

— — not understood by the heathen . . 27 

Immutability of God 156 

Impossibility of corrupting the sacred 

Scriptures 59 

Imputation, doctrine of 292 

■ of Adam's sin to his posterity. . . 293 

of Christ's righteousness 410 

of faith for righteousness 415 

, the term explained 418 

Infants, objections to the baptism of, 

obviated 562 

, proofs for the baptism of 565 

Infidelity, moral effects of 118 

Influence of the Holy Spirit 104 

Inspiration ascribed to the sacred pen- 
men 73 

a work of the Holy Spirit ... 23 

claimed by the sacred penmen. . . 74 

defined 71 

-, different opinions respecting 77 

, extent of . 77 

, necessity of 72 

of elevation 80 

of suggestion 81 

of superintendence 79 



PAGE 

Inspiration, plenary, import of 78 

, possibility of 7*2 

, reasonableness of 72 

, testimony of the Fathers re- 
specting 73 

Instinct and appetite govern the lower 

animals 267 

Institutions of Christianity 538 

Instruction, Divine, a privilege of God's 

people 444 

Integrity of the Scriptures 58 

Introduction 3 

Israelites who fell in the wilderness, 
examples of total apostasy 464 

Jehovah, a title given to Christ 196 

Jews, apostasies of, predicted 94 

, final restoration of 96 

, prophecies respecting 94 

shall be judged by Moses and the 

prophets 626 

, threatened punishments of 95 

Judas an example of apostasy 464 

Judgment, final, ascribed to Christ ... 204 

, general, rule of 626 

, general, time of 627 

Justice, general 165 

, judicial 166 

, legislative 165 

of God 165, 338 

of God requires the penalty of sin 

to be executed 340 

, particular 165, 338 

, universal 338 

, vindictive or punitive 166 

Justification, Antinomian scheme of . . 410 

— — , Arminian doctrine of 415 

, Calvinistic theory of 411 

— — distinguished from sanctification . 409 
■ does not make men actually right- 
eous 409 

-, eternal, absurdity of 408 

, how obtained 409 

is by faith alone 419 

, is by faith in the blood of Christ. 366 

, method of, peculiar to the Scrip- 
tures 409 

, nature of ... 406 

, preliminary remarks concerning. 403 

" King of Israel," a title given to Christ 199 
Knowledge of God 152 

Law, Adamic, nature of 275 

— — f moral, how made known in the 

Scriptures 467 

, moral, of the New Testament, a 

fuller revelation than the Old 470 

, moral, of the Old Testament, 

received into the New 469 

, moral, summarily comprehended 

in the Decalogue 468 

, moral, what 467 

of Moses, two Hebrew copies of. . 54 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 



659 



PAGE 

Law of the Sabbath 512 

, sacrifices of the 349 

Laws of nature, what 266 

Leslie's four rules for determining the 

truth of history 64 

four rules applied to the books of 

Moses 64 

four rules applied to the Gospel 

history 6*7 

Liberty a natural right of man 521 

defined by Locke and Edwards. . 311 

, natural, what 521 

of conscience 522 

of God 158 

of person 521 

of speech and of the press 522 

Life a natural right of man 518 

Light of nature, what 19 

Lord Herbert's primary principles of 

religion 158 

Lord's supper 590 

, general observations respecting. . 595 

, institution of 591 

, nature of 592 

, perpetual obligation of 591 

, theories respecting 592 

, true sacramental character of. . . 594 

Lotteries a species of gambling 521 

Love, filial 530 

of our neighbor 515 

, parental 528 

to God a fruit of tke Spirit 48? 

to God essential to obedience . . . 48*7 

to God, nature of. 486 

to God, obligations of 490 

Man, doctrines respecting 275 

, fall of 281 

held accountable for his moral 

actions 318 

, history of the creation of 277 

in his fallen condition 174 

made in the image of God 278 

, moral condition of 99 

, primitive state of 275 

, voluntary actions of, governed by 

moral laws 267 

was originally in a state of trial. . 283 

, what God has done for the re- 
covery of 177 

Manna, miracle of 85 

Manner of observing the Sabbath 512 

Man's moral agency 308 

consistent with Divine foreknowl- 
edge 331 

, nature of 308 

, objections to 322 

, proofs of 316 

, true doctrine of 314 

Man's original transgression, character 

of 281 

true moral condition 296 

Manuscripts, ancient, of the Old Testa- 
ment, agreement of 60 



PAGE 

Masters, duties of 532 

Matter not eternal 243 

Meditation a means of repentance 478 

Mercy-seat, as applied to Christ 362 

Messiah, prophecies respecting 96 

Ministers, unworthy, trial of 548 

Ministry, Christian, nature of 14 

, Christian, responsibilities of 17 

Miracle of Christ's resurrection 86 

Miracles, an external evidence of Di- 
vine revelation 41, 42, 83 

, circumstances under which they 

become an authenticating evidence. . 42 

, competency of human testimony 

to establish the credibility of 43 

, how distinguished 41 

, Hume's objection to, answered. . 44 

, instances of 41 

, nature of 41 

— — of Christ 85 

of Moses 84 

, possibility of 42 

Morality, Christian, motives of 106 

, Christian, superior nature of . . . . 106 

, Pagan, principles of, mere abstrac- 
tions 106 

, Pagan, what 28 

Morals, a perfect system of, found only 

in the-Bible 106 

of Christianity 467 

of the Scriptures, how proposed. . 467 

Monophysites, doctrine of, respecting 

Christ 221 

Moses, existence of 51 

, miracles of 84 

Nations rewarded in this life 167 

Nature, human, has two essential parts 277 

, laws of, what 266 

Necessity defined 332 

, different kinds of 309 

, doctrine of 309 

incompatible with moral freedom. 320 

Neighbor, duties to our 527 

, the love of our 515 

Nestorians, doctrine of, respecting 

Christ 221 

New Testament Scriptures, ancient 

date of 56 

, early catalogues of 56 

, quoted by early Christian authors 56 

Noah, sacrifice of on leaving the ark. . 345 

Obedience, filial 531 

to civil laws the duty of sub- 
jects 535 

Objection to the doctrine of imputation 

answered 294 

Objections to the Bible answered 114 

to the Divine administration an- 
swered 2S6 

to the doctrine of justification an- 
swered 420 

to the Mosaic history of the fall . . 2>ti 



660 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 



PAGE 

Objections to the spirituality of God. . . 144 
Objects of Divine foreknowledge classi- 
fied 152 

Obligations to love God 490 

Observance of the Sabbath 501 

, manner of 512 

Offense is followed by penal conse- 
quences 102 

Office, sacred, nature and responsibil- 
ities of 11 

Omnipotence ascribed to Christ 201 

of God 146 

Omnipresence ascribed to Christ 200 

of God. . .- 148 

of God, manner of the 151 

Omniscience ascribed to Christ 200 

of God 151 

of God, objects of 152 

Ordination, power of, with presbyters. 546 

Pagan religions, demoralizing influence 

of 33 

Pagans have no conception of pure 

morality 10 

Paine, objection of, to the truth of 

prophecy 116 

Pardon not an act of mere preroga- 
tive 102, 408 

not secured by mere penitence 

and reformation 102 

Parents, duties of, to their children. . . 528 

Passover, sacrifice of 351 

Pastors, Christian, office of 541 

, Christian, qualifications of 12 

Patriotism a duty 535 

Penalty of sin, nature of 291 

Perfection of God 177 

Personality and Deity of the Holy 

Ghost 227 

Person, as applied to God 178 

, liberty of 521 

of Christ 221 

of Christ, errors respecting 221 

of Christ, Scriptural doctrine of . . 223 

Piety necessary to true morality 515 

Philosophers, heathen, concessions of.. 32 

Plague of darkness 84 

Pleasures, the portion of the saints in 

heaven 635 

Polity of the Jews proves the existence 

and antiquity of Moses 51 

Prayer a means of regeneration 430 

an aid to repentance 479 

, duty of 492 

for rulers, the duty of subjects . . 536 

, nature of 492 

, obligations of 497 

, private 495 

, public 497 

, utility of 499 

, various kinds of 494 

Precepts, moral and positive 287 

of the Old Testament received into 

the New 469 



TAGS 

Predestination 387 

, Calvinistic view of 388 

defined and stated 388 

Prediction respecting the coming " Shi- 

loh" 93 

Predictions relate chiefly to the scheme 

of redemption 90 

Pre-existence of Christ 187 

Preface '. 3 

Prescience of God 153 

Presbyters, office of 542 

Preservation an element of Divine 

Providence 265 

ascribed to Christ 203 

ascribed to the Holy Ghost ..... 231 

Press, liberty of 522 

Probation implies the possibility of 

apostasy 466 

Proofs of the goodness of God 172 

Property a natural right 520 

Prophecies respecting the Jewish na- 
tion 94 

respecting the Messiah 96 

Prophecy a proof of^ Divine revela- 
tion 46 

, an objection to, answered 47 

, double sense of 92 

, ends of 91 

, extent of 90 

, force of the evidence of 46 

found only in the Scriptures .... 91 

, nature of . . .♦. 46 

respecting the coming "Shiloh" 93 

respecting the seed of the woman 92 

, supposed obscurity of 91 

Prophets, office of 540 

Propitiation, Christ a 356, 361 

Protection, Divine, a privilege of God's 

people 443 

Providence, Divine, nature of 265 

, Divine, proofs of. 261 

, Divine, objects of 268 

, Divine, with regard to moral evil 271 

, doctrine of, not discoverable by 

reason 26 

, general 268 

, particular 273 

, special 269 

Provision, Divine, a privilege of God's 

people 443 

Punishment, endless, doctrine of 648 

, endless, not incompatible with 

the Divine perfections . . . : 644 

, endless, of the wicked 637 

~, endless, objection to 649 

, future, a state of intense suffering 642 

, future, nature of. 641 

, future, not reformatory 643 

, future, will be endless 643 

of the Jews predicted 95 

of sinners not always disciplinary 644 

Raising the dead ascribed to Christ. . . 204 
Reality of Christ's death 86 



INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 



661 



PAGE 

Reason a source of theology 18 

denned 18 

, extent of the discoveries of 18 

, insufficiency of; in religion 23 

, limitations of 22 

, use of, in religion 20 

Reconciliation by Christ 364 

Redemption by Christ 363 

Red Sea, the dividing of the 84 

Reformation impossible without grace. 102 

included in true repentance 474 

Regeneration a concomitant of justifi- 
cation 427 

defined 425 

, general remarks respecting 424 

, means of 429 

, nature of 424 

, necessity of 428 

Relation, conjugal 527 

, filial 530 

, legal, of Adam to his posterity. . 292 

, parental 528 

, servile 531 

Relations, domestic , 527 

, political 532 

Religion, as distinguished from theology 10 

, Christian, a proof of the existence 

and antiquity of Christ 52 

, doctrines of, not 'presented in the 

Bible in a systematic form 14 

, natural, articles of 115 

understood objectively 10 

understood subjectively 10 

Remedial dispensation 336 

Repentance alone cannot secure par- 
don 102, 341 

and faith required of all men 384 

includes contrition 473 

includes reformation 474 

is the gift of God 472 

, means of 477 

, nature of 471 

, necessity of 476 

not regeneration 428 

, order of, in its connection with 

faith and regeneration 475 

Reprobation, doctrine of 399 

Republican government, what 533 

Restoration of the Jews, prophecy re- 
specting 96 

Restorationism, theory of 643 

, untenable 643 

Resurrection body, properties of 617 

, certainty of 614 

, nature of 611 

of Christ 86 

of the human body 611 

of the same body that dies 612 

- , will be universal 614 

Retribution, future, connected with the 

general judgment 640 

, future, subsequent to th^p general 

resurrection 640 

Revelation as a source of theology 22 



PAGE 

Revelation defined 22 

, Divine, evidences of 39, 84 

, Divine, necessary 23, 31 

, Divine, probable character of . . . 35 

, Divine, possible 22 

is all that could be reasonably ex- 
pected 36 

Righteousness, explanation of the term 417 

of Christ, how imputed to us 412 

Right 'to liberty 521 

to life secured by the law of God. 518 

to property, secured by the Di- 
vine law 520 

Rights, natural, what 518 

of God cannot be given up 340 

Robbery, what 520 

Sabbath, change of, from the seventh to 

the first day of the week 508 

, Christian, honored of God 512 

, inclusion of, in the Decalogue. . . 505 

, law of, what it forbids 513 

, law of, what it requires 514 

. manner of the observance of . . . . 512 

, observance of the 501 

, primitive institution of 501 

, recognition of, in the wilderness. 502 

, universal and perpetual obliga- 
tion of 501 

Sabellianism 222 

Sacraments, Catholic view of 553 

, institution of, by Christ 554 

, nature of 552 

, number of 556 

, Socinian notion of 554 

, true Protestant doctrine respect- 
ing 554 

Sacrifice of Abraham 346 

of Cain and Abel 345 

of Noah on leaving the ark 345 

of the Passover 351 

, vicarious, what 350 

Sacrifices, ante-Mosaic, expiatory 346 

, Levitical, typical character, of. . . 349 

, Levitical. types of a better sacri- 
fice '. 352 

of the law expiatory 349 

, patriarchal of Divine appoint- 
ment 343 

Sacrificial terms applied to Christ and 

his atoning work 354 

Saints, eternal blessedness of 630 

eternal blessedness of the, will 

be progressive 636 

will know one another in heaven . 636 

Salvation ascribed to Christ's death. . . 356 

, failure to obtain, man's own fault 385 

of all, will of God concerning the. 386 

offered to all men in the Gospel. . 3S2 

Sanctification, entire, attainability of . . 447 
, entire, does not differ from re- 
generation 446 

, entire, does not exclude tempta- 
tion 447 



662 



INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 



PAGE 

Sanctifieation, entire, does not imply 

indefectibility 446 

■ -, entire, objections to, answered. . 453 

, entire, the manner of. 452 

, entire, the nature of 446 

, entire, the time of 450 

Satan the real tempter of our first 

parents 285 

Satisfaction made to Divine justice, 

meaning of the phrase 368 

Saul an example of total apostasy .... 463 

Scape-goat, sacrifice of 351 

Scriptures, authenticity of 64 

, Divine authority of . . . 11, 83, 90, 98 

, genuineness of 51 

, integrity of 58 

, moral tendency of 105 

, moral tendency of, exemplified in 

the person of Christ 106 

worthy of God 107 

■ , Jewish, a catalogue of, by Jo- 

sephus 53 

, Jewish, antiquity of 51 

, Jewish, translated into Greek. . . 53 

, Jewish, the impossibility of cor- 
rupting the 59 

, New Testament, antiquity of . . . . 56 

— — , New Testament, catalogues of . . 56 

. New Testament, could not be 

corrupted 61 

, New Testament, testimonies of 

enemies to 57 

Seed of the woman, promise of 92 

Self-examination a means of repentance 478 

Semiarianism 222 

Serpent, sentence pronounced upon 

the 285 

Servants, duties of 531 

Settlement of children, a parental duty. 530 

Shiloh, prediction respecting, 93 

Sin not pardoned on mere preroga- 
tive 102, 408 

not pardoned on mere repentance 102 

not pardoned on repentance and 

reformation 102 

, original, nature of 297 

Solomon an example of total apostasy . 464 
Son of God, in what sense Christ is the 213 

Sonship of Christ 210 

, false theories respecting the 210 

, importance of the orthodox view 

of the 219 

, true doctrine of the, established. 213 

8oul, the, can exist separate from the 

body 604 

, the, exists after death in a con- 
scious state 606 

, immortality of the 597 

, immortality of the, not under- 
stood by the heathen 27 

, immortality of the, proved by 

Scripture 604 

, nature and powers of, a proof of 

the Divine existence 138 



PAGE 

Soul, received by traduction 306 

Speech, liberty of 522 

Spine, human, a proof of design 137 

Spirituality of God , 142 

, several objections to, answered. . 144 

State, future 597 

Stonehenge, in Salisbury Plain 66 

Stones set up at Gilgal 66 

Style and manner of the sacred writers 108 

Subjects, duties of 535 

Submission to God implied in love to 

him 488 

Suicide, criminality of 518 

Supplies, pecuniary, for the necessities 

of government, due from subjects. . . 536 

Support of children, the duty of parents 528 

Table of contents 5 

Teachers, office of 541 

Terms, sacrificial, applied to the death 

of Christ 354 

Testament, New, agreement of ancient 

manuscripts of 61 

, New, agreement of ancient ver- 
sions of, with quotations made by 

early Christian writers 62 

■, New, antiquity of 56 

— — , New, contains the fuller revela- 
tion of moral law 470 

, New, early catalogues of the 

books of the 56 

, New, integrity of 61 

, New, quoted by early Christians. 56 

, Old, antiquity of 56 

Testimony of ancient writers, a proof 
of the genuineness of the Scriptures. 52 

of the disciples to Christ's resur- 
rection highly credible 87 

Theft, what 520 

Theology a science 10 

claims universal attention 17 

, didactic 14 

, divisions of 13 

embraces many controverted sub- 
jects 11 

, general utility of 17 

, importance of 11 

, natural 13 

, natural, not to be rejected 13 

, natural, principles of. not dis- 
covered by reason 29 

, nature of 9 

, objects of .- 12 

, polemic 15 

, practical 16 

, revealed 13 

, sources of 18 

, term explained 9 

the Christian minister's profes- 
sion 17 

Theologian, what 10 

Time, succession of, ascribed to God . . 145 

Titles, Divine, ascribed to Christ 195 

Traduction of the soul 306 



INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 



663 



PAGE 

Translation, Greek, of the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures a proof of their an- 
tiquity 53 

Transubstantiation 592 

Tribute, the payment of, the duty of 

subjects 536 

Trinity, doctrine of, as affecting our 

views of God 180 

, doctrine of, essential to the credit 

of the Scriptures 181 

, doctrine of, importance of the. . . 180 

, doctrine of, lies at the foundation 

of revealed theology 31 

, doctrine of, intimately connected 

with morals 180 

, doctrine of, Scripture proofs of 

the 182 

in unity 178 

, Sabellian notion of 222 

Trust in God implied in love to him. . . 489 

in God implied in saving faith . . . 484 

Truth, conformity to, required by justice 523 

of God, proofs of 162 

, when assailed, should be defended 16 

Type, what 352 

Unity of God, proofs of 140 

Universalism, brief view of 374 

Universalists, doctrine of, contrary to 

matters of fact 631 

, doctrine of, contrary to Scrip- 
ture 637 

, doctrine of, respecting the pun- 
ishment of sin 637 

, doctrine of, self-contradictory. . . 638 

, doctrine of, subverts the whole 

scheme of salvation by grace 639 

Universe, physical, governed by the 

laws of nature 266 

Unsearchableness of God 178 

Volition does not imply an infinite 
series of volitions 322 

is not an effect 323 

is not the unavoidable result of 

motives 326 

Voltaire, objection of, to the truth of 
prophecy 116 



PAGE 

Warnings prove apostasy possible. . . . 465 
Week, first day of the, called Lord's day 510 

, first day of the, distinguished by 

God's gracious dispensations 511 

, first day of the, observed by the 

apostolic Churches 510 

Will, as distinguished from intelligence 

and sensibility 316 

, freedom of, everywhere acknowl- 
edged in the Scriptures 319 

, how influenced by motives 314 

of God concerning the salvation 

of all men 386 

of God the only ground of moral 

obligation 467 

of God, the secret and revealed . . 241 

Wisdom of God 159 

demonstrated by his works .159 

Witness of our own spirit 440 

of the Spirit to our adoption 437 

of the Spirit, different theories 

respecting the 436 

Works, Divine, ascribed to Christ .... 201 

of God 242 

of God declare his wisdom 159 

World not eternal 243 

Worship paid to Christ 205 

paid to Christ an evidence of his 

Divinity 208 

, public, obligations of 498 

, supreme and inferior, Arian no- 
tion of 209 

, supreme, paid to the Holy Ghost 232 

Wrath ascribed to God 363 

Writers, sacred, claimed to be inspired. 74 

, sacred, credibility of 68 

, sacred, highly circumstantial in 

their accounts 70 

, sacred, knew what they related . 69 

, sacred, style and manner of 108 

, sacred, were men of exemplary 

virtue and piety 68 

, sacred, were not influenced by 

worldly motives 69 

, sacred, wonderful agreement of. . 107 

Zuinglius, theory of, respecting the 
Lord's Supper 593 



Note to Page 523. 

Relation of Methodism to Slavery. — The following statements by Mr. "Watson 
furnish the grounds on which English Methodism stands in regard to slavery : 

"As to the existence of slavery in Christian states, every government, as soon as it 
professes to be Christian, binds itself to be regulated by the principles of the New 
Testament ; and though a part of its subjects should at that time be in a state of servi- 
tude, and their sudden emancipation might be obviously an injury to society at large, it 
is bound to show that its spirit and tendency is as -inimical to slavery as is the Chris- 
tianity which it professes. All the injustice and oppression against which it can guard 
that condition, and all the mitigating regulations it can adopt, are obligatory upon it ; 
and since also every Christian slave is enjoined by apostolic authority to choose freedom, 
when it is possible to attain it, as being a better state, and more befitting a Christian 
man, so is every Christian master bound, by the principle of loving his neighbor, and 
more especially his 'brother in Christ,' as himself, to promote his passing into that 
better and more Christian state. To the instruction of the slaves in religion would 
every such Christian government also be bound, and still further to adopt measures for 
the final extinction of slavery ; the rule of its proceeding in this case being the accom- 
plishment of this object as soon as is compatible with the real welfare of the enslaved 
portion of its subjects themselves, and not the consideration of the losses which might 
be sustained by their proprietors, which, however, ought to be compensated by other 
means, as far as they are just, and equitably estimated. 

"If this be the mode of proceeding clearly pointed out by Christianity to a state on 
its first becoming Christian, when previously, and for ages, the practice of slavery had 
grown up with it, how much more forcibly does it impose its obligation upon nations 
involved in the guilt of the modern African slavery ! They professed Christianity when 
they commenced the practice. They entered upon a traffic which ab initio was, upon 
their own principles, unjust and cruel. They had no rights of war to plead against the 
natural rights of the first captives; who were in fact stolen, or purchased from the 
stealers, knowing them to be so. The governments themselves never acquired any 
right of property in the parents ; they have none in their descendants, and can acquire 
none ; as the thief who steals cattle cannot, should he feed and defend them, acquire any 
right of property, either in them or the stock they may produce, although he should be 
at the charge of rearing them. These governments not having a right of property in 
their colonial slaves, could not transfer any right of property in them to their present 
masters, for it could not give what it never had ; nor, by its connivance at the robberies 
and purchases of stolen human beings, alter the essential injustice of the transaction. 
All such governments are therefore clearly bound, as they fear God and dread his dis- 
pleasure, to restore all their slaves to the condition of free men. Restoration to their 
friends and country is now out of the question ; they are bound to protect them where 
they are, and have the right to exact their obedience to good laws in return : but prop- 
erty in them they cannot obtain ; their natural right to liberty is untouched and inviol- 
able. The manner in which this right is to be restored, we grant, is in the power of 
such governments to determine, provided that proceeding be regulated by the principles 
above laid down: first, that the emancipation be sincerely determined upon at some 
time future; secondly, that it be not delayed beyond the period which the general 
interest of the slaves themselves prescribes, and which is to be judged of benevolently, and 
without any bias of judgment, giving the advantage of every doubt to the injured party; 
thirdly, that all possible means be adopted to render freedom a good to them." 

The Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States has long included the buying 
and selling of human beings among the sins sufficient to exclude the offender from the 
kingdom of God. It also declared in 1184 of "the practice of holding our fellow-creat- 
ures in slavery;" "we view it as contrary to the golden law of God, on which hang all 
the law and the prophets, and the unalienable rights of mankind." Having so declared, 
the Discipline has reiterated from 1*796 that we are "more than ever," or "as much as 
ever convinced of the great evil of slavery;" so that in principle the declaration of 1184 
has been constantly reaffirmed. From 1196 the question, "What shall be done for the 
'extirpation' of slavery?" has been retained, so that such "extirpation" has been 
unchangeably held as one of the objects for which we exist as a Church. — Ed. 

THE END. 

m 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proceS 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologM 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIfl 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 M 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



